Tesla's production capacities are in store for a significant growth spurt, CEO Elon Musk told the crowd assembled at the company's Austin, Texas Gigafactory for Investor Day 2023 — and AI will apparently be the magic bullet that gets them there. It's all part of what Musk is calling Master Plan part 3.

This is indeed Musk's third such Master Plan, the first two coming in 2006 and 2016, respectively. These have served as a roadmap for the company's growth and development over the past 17 years as Tesla has grown from neophyte startup to the world's leading EV automaker. "There is a clear path to a sustainable energy Earth and it does not require destroying natural habitats," Musk said during the keynote address. 

"You could support a civilization much bigger than Earth [currently does]. Much more than the 8 billion humans could actually be supported sustainably on Earth and I'm just often shocked and surprised by how few people realize this," he continued.

The Master Plan aims to establish a sustainable energy economy by developing 240 terraWatt hours (TWH) of energy storage and 30 TWH of renewable power generation, which would require an estimated $10 trillion investment, roughly 10 percent of the global GDP. Musk notes, however, that figure is less than half of what we spend currently on internal combustion economy. In all, he anticipates we'd need less than 0.2 percent of the world's land area to create the necessary solar and wind generation capacity. 

"All cars will go to fully electric and autonomous," Musk declared, arguing once again that ICE vehicles will soon be viewed in the same disdain as the horse and buggy. He also teased potential plans to electrify aircraft and ships. "As we improve the energy density of batteries, you’ll see all transportation go fully electric, with the exception of rockets,” he said. No further details as to when or how that might be accomplished were shared.

“A sustainable energy economy is within reach and we should accelerate it,” Drew Baglino, Tesla's SVP of Powertrain and Energy Engineering, added.

Developing...

Tesla's Investor Day isn't here quite yet, but we may already know one of the company's biggest announcements. According to Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, Elon Musk has promised to build the automaker's next gigafactory in northern Mexico — specifically in Monterrey, the capitol of the northern state of Nuevo Leon. It's a deal that's been in the works for some time: Late last year, Musk visited Nuevo Leon to meet with the Governor of the region.

Even so, there were some questions about if Tesla could get approval to build in the area — after Monterrey suffered severe water shortages in 2022, President López Obrador said the government would not grant permits for water-hungry factories. After a series of phone calls with Elon Musk, Tesla was granted an exception. “There is one commitment that all the water used in the manufacture of electric automobiles will be recycled water,” López Obrador said of the call, adding that the factory would also represent "a considerable investment and many, many jobs."

As for what Tesla plans to build in Monterrey, Mexico? We'll have to wait a day to find out. The Mexican President wasn't clear on exactly what the new factory would be producing, though it's worth noting that Tesla has already announced a massive expansion of its facility in Reno, Nevada, where it's investing $3.6 billion to build a battery factory and mass produce the Telsa Semi truck. López Obrador noted that we can expect to hear more details on Wednesday, March 1st — and hey, that's Tesla Investor day.

Engine knock, wherein fuel ignites unevenly along the cylinder wall resulting in damaging percussive shockwaves, is an issue that automakers have struggled to mitigate since the days of the Model T. The industry's initial attempts to solve the problem — namely tetraethyl lead — were, in hindsight, a huge mistake, having endumbened and stupefied an entire generation of Americans with their neurotoxic byproducts.

Dr. Vaclav Smil, Professor Emeritus at the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, examines the short-sighted economic reasoning that lead to leaded gas rather than a nationwide network of ethanol stations in his new book Invention and Innovation: A Brief History of Hype and Failure. Lead gas is far from the only presumed advance to go over like a lead balloon. Invention and Innovation is packed with tales of humanity's best-intentioned, most ill-conceived and generally half-cocked ideas — from airships and hyperloops to DDT and CFCs. 

MIT Press

Excerpted from Invention and Innovation: A Brief History of Hype and Failure by Professor Vaclav Smil. Reprinted with permission from The MIT Press. Copyright 2023.

Just seven years later Henry Ford began to sell his Model T, the first mass-produced affordable and durable passenger car, and in 1911 Charles Kettering, who later played a key role in developing leaded gasoline, designed the first practical electric starter, which obviated dangerous hand cranking. And although hard-topped roads were still in short supply even in the eastern part of the US, their construction began to accelerate, with the country’s paved highway length more than doubling between 1905 and 1920. No less important, decades of crude oil discoveries accompanied by advances in refining provided the liquid fuels needed for the expansion of the new transportation, and in 1913 Standard Oil of Indiana introduced William Burton’s thermal cracking of crude oil, the process that increased gasoline yield while reducing the share of volatile compounds that make up the bulk of natural gasolines.

But having more affordable and more reliable cars, more paved roads, and a dependable supply of appropriate fuel still left a problem inherent in the combustion cycle used by car engines: the propensity to violent knocking (pinging). In a perfectly operating gasoline engine, gas combustion is initiated solely by a timed spark at the top of the combustion chamber and the resulting flame front moves uniformly across the cylinder volume. Knocking is caused by spontaneous ignitions (small explosions, mini-detonations) taking place in the remaining gases before they are reached by the flame front initiated by sparking. Knocking creates high pressures (up to 18 MPa, or nearly up to 180 times the normal atmospheric level), and the resulting shock waves, traveling at speeds greater than sound, vibrate the combustion chamber walls and produce the telling sounds of a knocking, malfunctioning engine.

Knocking sounds alarming at any speed, but when an engine operates at a high load it can be very destructive. Severe knocking can cause brutal irreparable engine damage, including cylinder head erosion, broken piston rings, and melted pistons; and any knocking reduces an engine’s efficiency and releases more pollutants; in particular, it results in higher nitrogen oxide emissions. The capacity to resist knocking— that is, fuel’s stability— is based on the pressure at which fuel will spontaneously ignite and has been universally measured in octane numbers, which are usually displayed by filling stations in bold black numbers on a yellow background.

Octane (C8H18) is one of the alkanes (hydrocarbons with the general formula CnH2n + 2) that form anywhere between 10 to 40 percent of light crude oils, and one of its isomers (compounds with the same number of carbon and hydrogen atoms but with a different molecular structure), 2,2,4-trimethypentane (iso-octane), was taken as the maximum (100 percent) on the octane rating scale because the compound completely prevents any knocking. The higher the octane rating of gasoline, the more resistant the fuel is to knocking, and engines can operate more efficiently with higher compression ratios. North American refiners now offer three octane grades, regular gasoline (87), midgrade fuel (89), and premium fuel mixes (91– 93).

During the first two decades of the twentieth century, the earliest phase of automotive expansion, there were three options to minimize or eliminate destructive knocking. The first one was to keep the compression ratios of internal combustion engines relatively low, below 4.3:1: Ford’s best-selling Model T, rolled out in 1908, had a compression ratio of 3.98:1. The second one was to develop smaller but more efficient engines running on better fuel, and the third one was to use additives that would prevent the uncontrolled ignition. Keeping compression ratios low meant wasting fuel, and the reduced engine efficiency was of a particular concern during the years of rapid post–World War I economic expansion as rising car ownership of more powerful and more spacious cars led to concerns about the long-term adequacy of domestic crude oil supplies and the growing dependence on imports. Consequently, additives offered the easiest way out: they would allow using lower-quality fuel in more powerful engines operating more efficiently with higher compression ratios.

During the first two decades of the twentieth century there was considerable interest in ethanol (ethyl alcohol, C2H6O or CH3CH2OH), both as a car fuel and as a gasoline additive. Numerous tests proved that engines using pure ethanol would never knock, and ethanol blends with kerosene and gasoline were tried in Europe and in the US. Ethanol’s well-known proponents included Alexander Graham Bell, Elihu Thomson, and Henry Ford (although Ford did not, as many sources erroneously claim, design the Model T to run on ethanol or to be a dual-fuel vehicle; it was to be fueled by gasoline); Charles Kettering considered it to be the fuel of the future.

But three disadvantages complicated ethanol’s large-scale adoption: it was more expensive than gasoline, it was not available in volumes sufficient to meet the rising demand for automotive fuel, and increasing its supply, even only if it were used as the dominant additive, would have claimed significant shares of crop production. At that time there were no affordable, direct ways to produce the fuel on a large scale from abundant cellulosic waste such as wood or straw: cellulose had first to be hydrolyzed by sulfuric acid and the resulting sugars were then fermented. That is why the fuel ethanol was made mostly from the same food crops that were used to make (in much smaller volumes) alcohol for drinking and medicinal and industrial uses.

The search for a new, effective additive began in 1916 in Charles Kettering’s Dayton Research Laboratories with Thomas Midgley, a young (born in 1889) mechanical engineer, in charge of this effort. In July 1918 a report prepared in collaboration with the US Army and the US Bureau of Mines listed ethyl alcohol, benzene, and a cyclohexane as the compounds that did not produce any knocking in high-compression engines. In 1919, when Kettering was hired by GM to head its new research division, he defined the challenge as one of averting a looming fuel shortage: the US domestic crude oil supply was expected to be gone in fifteen years, and “if we could successfully raise the compression of our motors . . . we could double the mileage and thereby lengthen this period to 30 years.” Kettering saw two routes toward that goal, by using a high-volume additive (ethanol or, as tests showed, fuel with 40 percent benzene that eliminated any knocking) or a low-percentage alternative, akin to but better than the 1 percent iodine solution that was accidentally discovered in 1919 to have the same effect.

In early 1921 Kettering learned about Victor Lehner’s synthesis of selenium oxychloride at the University of Wisconsin. Tests showed it to be a highly effective but, as expected, also a highly corrosive anti-knocking compound, but they led directly to considering compounds of other elements in group 16 of the periodic table: both diethyl selenide and diethyl telluride showed even better anti-knocking properties, but the latter compound was poisonous when inhaled or absorbed through skin and had a powerful garlicky smell. Tetraethyl tin was the next compound found to be modestly effective, and on December 9, 1921, a solution of 1 percent tetraethyl lead (TEL) — (C2H5)4 Pb — produced no knock in the test engine, and soon was found to be effective even when added in concentrations as low as 0.04 percent by volume.

TEL was originally synthesized in Germany by Karl Jacob Löwig in 1853 and had no previous commercial use. In January 1922, DuPont and Standard Oil of New Jersey were contracted to produce TEL, and by February 1923 the new fuel (with the additive mixed into the gasoline at pumps by means of simple devices called ethylizers) became available to the public in a small number of filling stations. Even as the commitment to TEL was going ahead, Midgley and Kettering conceded that “unquestionably alcohol is the fuel of the future,” and estimates showed that a 20 percent blend of ethanol and gasoline needed in 1920 could be supplied by using only about 9 percent of the country’s grain and sugar crops while providing an additional market for US farmers. And during the interwar period many European and some tropical countries used blends of 10– 25 percent ethanol (made from surplus food crops and paper mill wastes) and gasoline, admittedly for relatively small markets as the pre–World War II ownership of family cars in Europe was only a fraction of the US mean.

Other known alternatives included vapor-phase cracked refinery liquids, benzene blends, and gasoline from naphthenic crudes (containing little or no wax). Why did GM, well aware of these realities, decide not only to pursue just the TEL route but also to claim (despite its own correct understanding) that there were no available alternatives: “So far as we know at the present time, tetraethyl lead is the only material available which can bring about these results”? Several factors help to explain the choice. The ethanol route would have required a mass-scale development of a new industry dedicated to an automotive fuel additive that could not be controlled by GM. Moreover, as already noted, the preferable option, producing ethanol from cellulosic waste (crop residues, wood), rather than from food crops, was too expensive to be practical. In fact, the large-scale production of cellulosic ethanol by new enzymatic conversions, promised to be of epoch-making importance in the twenty-first century, has failed its expectations, and by 2020 high-volume US production of ethanol (used as an anti-knocking additive) continued to be based on fermenting corn: in 2020 it claimed almost exactly one-third of the country’s corn harvest.

The Biden administration has unveiled new initiatives in its $7.5 billion plan to install 500,000 EV chargers on US roads by 2030. As part of that, it announced that Tesla has committed to to open up 7,500 of its charging stations to non-Tesla vehicles by the end of 2024. 

In 2021 Tesla announced that its open-access Supercharger program (currently being piloted in 16 European nations) would be coming to the US. With a firm date now in hand, the White House has revealed details of the plan. Of 7,500 chargers available for all compatible EVs, 3,500 will be new and existing 250 kW Superchargers along highway corridors. The rest will be Level 2 Destination Charging stations (22 kW max) at hotels, restaurants and other urban and rural locations. Tesla will also boost its US Supercharger network by 300 percent, officials said. 

In order to tap into the $7.5 billion in funding, companies must adopt the Combined Charging System (CCS) that dominates in the US, while offering smartphone-friendly payment options. "No matter what EV you drive, we want to make sure that you will be able to plug in, know the price you're going to be paying and charge up in a predictable, user-friendly experience," Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg told reporters. Tesla currently uses proprietary chargers, but has committed to adding the CCS standard as well.

Tesla's commitment is part of the White House's larger plan to have at least 500,000 EV chargers on US roads by 2030. To hit that goal, the administration has received commitments from EV manufacturers like GM and Ford, along with ChargePoint and other EV charger manufacturers. Those will add more than 100,000 public chargers available to all EVs. 

For example, GM has already committed to install up to 40,000 Level 2 stations across the US and Canada as part of its Ultium Charge 360 network. It will also install a coast-to-coast network of 2,000 350 kW fast chargers along US roads in partnership with Pilot Company and EVgo. Ford, meanwhile, plans to install DC fast chargers at 1,920 dealerships by January 2024. Hertz also plans to install thousands of BP's Pulse chargers in US cities for Hertz customers and the public. 

Early last year, the White House revealed its plan to ensure that 500,000 EV chargers are publicly available in the US as part of $7.5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) Formula Program. That's motivated by an overall plan to convert half of all new US vehicle sales to zero-emissions by 2030. There are now over 130,000 public chargers serving over three million EVs now on the road — still not nearly enough, critics have said. The first tranche of NEVI funds will be delivered to states in the coming weeks.

Researchers at the University of Adelaide announced this week that they made clean hydrogen fuel from seawater without pre-treatment. Demand for hydrogen fuel, a clean energy source that only produces water when burned, is expected to increase in the coming years as the world (hopefully) continues to pivot away from fossil fuels. The findings could eventually provide cheaper green energy production to coastal areas.

“We have split natural seawater into oxygen and hydrogen with nearly 100 per cent efficiency, to produce green hydrogen by electrolysis, using a non-precious and cheap catalyst in a commercial electrolyser,” said Professor Shizhang Qiao, the team’s co-lead. Seawater typically needs to be purified before electrolysis splits it into hydrogen and oxygen. The team says its results, using cobalt oxide with chromium oxide on its surface as the catalyst, had similar performance to a standard process of applying platinum and iridium catalysts to highly purified and deionized water.

Compared to freshwater, seawater is an abundant resource, and the ability to extract hydrogen fuel from seawater without pre-treatment could save money. However, even if successfully scaled, it would likely only be practical for coastal communities with plenty of seawater — not so much for Iowa or Kansas.

The team’s next step is to scale the system with a larger electrolyzer. Then, although it’s still early in development, the researchers hope to eventually apply the findings to commercial hydrogen production for fuel cells and ammonia synthesis. Co-lead Yao Zheng summarized, “Our work provides a solution to directly utilise seawater without pre-treatment systems and alkali addition, which shows similar performance as that of existing metal-based mature pure water electrolyser.”

Don't worry if the lack of a federal tax credit put you off from buying certain Tesla Model Y variants or other EVs — they might now qualify. The Treasury Department has revised its classification standard to treat more vehicles as SUVs rather than sedans, raising the price threshold from $55,000 to $80,000 and making more EVs eligible for the Internal Revenue Service's (IRS) full $7,500 credit under the Inflation Reduction Act. As Autoblogexplains, that should cover five-seat versions of the Model Y (only seven-seaters qualified before) as well as the Cadillac Lyriq, Ford Mustang Mach-E, Ford Escape Plug-in Hybrid and VW ID.4.

The Treasury expanded the classification by using the Environmental Protection Agency's public-oriented Fuel Economy Labeling standard rather than the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). This will help treat crossovers "consistently," the department says. This also helps the credit classifications line up with what you see both on the car label and the US government's FuelEconomy.gov website.

You can claim the full amount for any qualifying EV bought and put into service in 2023, including those that weren't eligible under the CAFE standard. Any vehicle that could receive the credit before will still pass muster, the Treasury says.

The change of heart comes after the IRS invited public comments on a proposed change. Tesla chief Elon Musk encouraged input from his Twitter followers soon afterward. It's unclear how much of a role Tesla's fanbase played, but the decision isn't surprising. Under the old criteria, some of the best-known EVs didn't qualify. The credits were meant to spur EV adoption and further the Biden administration's climate goals — that was going to be harder if customers couldn't get deals on the most popular models.

Most electric vehicles get upgrades to boost performance or range, but Antarctica's one and only EV has received a tune-up due to the realities of climate change. Venturi has revealed that it upgraded its Venturi Antarctica electric explorer early last year due to warmer conditions on the continent. The original machine was designed to operate in winter temperatures of -58F, but the southern polar region is now comparatively balmy at 14F — and that affected both crews and performance.

The company has added a ventilation system and air intakes to the front of the Antarctica to prevent overheating in the cockpit, while additional intakes keep the power electronics from cooking. Redesigned wheel sprockets were also necessary to maximize the tracked EV's capabilities. The warmer snow was sticking to the sprockets, creating vibrations as it compacted and hardened. Future upgrades will help restore range lost to changing snow consistency. The Antarctica is built to cover 31 miles, but scientists have been limiting that to 25 miles.

Ars Technicanotes Venturi's EV has been in use at Belgium's Princess Elisabeth Antarctica Station since December 2021. It has two modest 80HP motors and just a 52.6kWh battery (plus an optional second pack), but raw power isn't the point. The design lets station residents perform research without contributing to emissions or polluting a relatively pristine region.

You might not see Venturi make similar climate-related upgrades for a while. However, the refresh shows how global warming can affect transportation in subtle ways. Venturi and other manufacturers may have to design their next explorers on the assumption that Antarctica won't be as chilly as before.

Energy generated from solar and wind power reportedly overtook natural gas in the European Union (EU) for the first time last year. The data comes from UK clean-energy think tank Ember (via Bloomberg), which projects the gap to grow.

Solar and wind energy rose to an all-time high of 22 percent of the EU’s 2022 electricity use. Meanwhile, Ember projects fossil-fuel generation to drop by 20 percent this year — with gas falling the fastest.

The shifts stem largely from reducing reliance on gas and coal after Russia invaded Ukraine. President Vladimir Putin ordered the cutoff of natural gas exports to the EU as retaliation for Western sanctions. Ember says the resulting high costs helped lower energy demand by around eight percent in Q4 2022 compared to the same quarter the previous year.

“There is now a focus on rapidly cutting gas demand — at the same time as phasing out coal,’’ the report said. “This means a massive scale-up in clean energy is on its way.” It expects nuclear power to remain flat in 2023, with a planned phase-out of German nuclear reactors canceling out a ramp-up from France. However, it projects hydropower to rise by around 40 terawatt-hours this year following a severe drought in 2022.

Swiss scientists have developed a proof-of-concept method to collect environmental DNA (eDNA) from high-arching forest canopies, an under-observed habitat. Rather than hiring skilled climbers to risk their lives to grab a little bug and bird DNA, the team flew a collection drone into the trees to capture genetic material — giving them a clearer picture of the area’s organic breakdown.

The researchers used a quadcopter equipped with a sticky collection cage. But since tree branches can bend at the slightest touch — and the drone needs to touch the branches to collect DNA — it has a haptic-based control scheme using force sensors to measure the pressure between the drone and the branch. Then, it adjusts its landing accordingly, leaning against the branch gently enough to avoid flinging valuable material to the ground.

The drone’s cage then grabs samples with a sticky surface made from “adhesive tape and a cotton gauze humidified with a solution of water and DNA-free sugar.” The cage spends around 10 seconds leaning on each branch and collecting eDNA before zipping back to the base, where the scientists retrieve the samples and ship them to a lab. The experiment’s drone successfully collected enough genetic material to identify 21 animal classes ranging from insects and mammals to birds and amphibians.

Science

However, the scientists make it clear this is a work in progress. For example, on the last research day, the team noticed a drop in eDNA detection because of rainfall the night before — suggesting the method only tells them which creatures visited since the last downpour. Additionally, they noted unexplained differences in the performance of their two collectors, highlighting the need for more research on equipment variations.

The researchers hope their work will make it easier and cheaper for environmental biologists to learn which critters live in some of the hardest-to-reach places. The approach could eventually help the scientific community understand how environmental changes affect biodiversity, perhaps helping identify endangered or vulnerable species before it’s too late.

New York City’s first flood-monitoring network is set to expand. Thanks to $7.2 million in funding from the city, the number of flood-prone areas FloodNet monitors with its sensors will increase from 31 to 500 across all five boroughs. The expansion is expected to start next month and take up to five years.

Data from the sensors is fed into a free web dashboard that residents, city agencies, researchers and anyone else can use to stay on top of and react to flood threats. The dashboard receives water-level readings from the sensors in real time. An interactive map shows where, when and how rapidly water is rising, whether that's due to seawater surges at the coast or stormwater drains not being able to handle floods. The dashboard also includes historical data, which can help people to track the frequency and severity of floods over time.

Researchers from New York University, The City University of New York, Brooklyn College and the Science and Resilience Institute developed FloodNet. They had assistance from the mayor's Office of Climate & Environmental Justice, the NYC Office of Technology & Innovation and neighborhood community groups.

FloodNet's solar-powered sensors are low cost and open-source. They use ultrasound to measure changes in water levels and wirelessly transfer data to a gateway hub, which then sends the information to FloodNet's servers and the dashboard.

Sea levels in the city have risen by a foot in the last century, according to the New York City Panel on Climate Change. They're expected to increase by between another eight and 30 inches by around 2050, and between 15 and 75 inches by the end of the century. More detailed flood data can help city planners and others prepare for permanent water level rises, along with weather events like hurricanes that can quickly wreak havoc.