Connect with us

Published

on

Elon Musk finally admits that Tesla will have to replace its HW3 self-driving computers. He said it would be difficult, but Tesla would do it.

However, no concrete plan has been

For the better part of the year, we have been reporting that Tesla can’t achieve its promise of “full self-driving on HW3, and it needs to come clean about it.

Last October, Tesla CEO Elon Musk finally admitted that it might be the case, but he didn’t want to commit fully:

We are not 100% sure. HW4 has several times the capability of HW3. It’s easier to get things to work on HW4 and it takes a lot of efforts to squeeze that into HW3. There is some chance that HW3 does not achieve the safety level that allows for unsupervised FSD.

Today, just 3 months later, Tesla’s management was asked about the HW3 situation again.

Tesla’s head of FSD, Ashok Elluswamy, first responded that they “are not giving up on it”, but then Musk corrected him saying that “the truth is that we will need to replace all HW3 computers in vehicles where FSD was purchased.”

He said that Tesla would replace them for free, but he specified that it will only be for people who bought the up to $15,000 Full Self-Driving package.

That could prove problematic as Tesla always promised that “all cars produced since 2016 are capable of Full Self-Driving” – not just the ones who paid for the software.

Tesla already had to upgrade computers on older vehicles built between 2016 and 2018 that had older HW2.5 computers. Again, Tesla only offered HW3 retrofits for people who bought the FSD software package and it was proven wrong in court.

In fact, Tesla was sued by an owner who had a HW2.5 vehicle and wanted to use the monthly FSD subscription. Tesla wanted to charge him for the computer retrofit to make the FSD work on his car. He took them to court over the claim that “all cars produced since 2016 are capable of Full Self-Driving” and the judge sided with the owner, forcing Tesla to pay for the retrofit.

Tesla could technically find itself having to do that on millions of HW3 vehicles now.

Furthermore, Tesla will have to design a new computer to retrofit vehicles equipped with HW3 computers since the HW4 computer in its latest vehicles is not retrofittable for the HW3 cars.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla launches accessory to Macgyver power outlets on the go on new cheaper Cybertruck

Published

on

By

Tesla launches accessory to Macgyver power outlets on the go on new cheaper Cybertruck

Tesla has launched a new accessory enabling you to “Macgyver” a couple of power outlets from the Cybertruck’s charge port.

It appears to be designed for the new cheaper Cybertruck, which doesn’t have power outlets in its bed.

Earlier this week, Tesla launched the Cybertruck Long Range RWD: a new, cheaper, and badly nerfed version of the electric pickup truck.

The new version is extremely disappointing as it is $9,000 more expensive than the Cybertruck RWD was supposed to be, and while it has more range than originally planned, Tesla has removed a ton of features, including some important ones.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Here’s what you lose with the Cybertruck RWD:

  • You get a single motor RWD instead of Dual Motor AWD
  • You lose the adaptive air suspension
  • No motorized tonneau, but you have an optional $750 soft tonneau
  • Textile seats instead of vegan leather
  • Fewer speakers
  • No rear screen for the backseat
  • No power outlets in the bed

The last one has been pretty disappointing, as it can’t be that expensive to include, and Tesla is basically removing $20,000 worth of features for only a $10,000 difference with the Dual Motor Cybertruck.

But the automaker appears to have come up with a partial solution.

Tesla has launched a $80 ‘Powershare Outlet Adapter’ on its online store:

When combined with Tesla’s Gen 3 Mobile Connector plugged into the Cybertruck’s charge port, it gives you two 120V 20A power outlets.

Tesla describes the product:

Powershare Outlet Adapter allows you to power electronic devices using Mobile Connector and your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s battery. To use this adapter, plug Mobile Connector’s handle into your Powershare-equipped vehicle’s charge port and connect the adapter to the other end of your Mobile Connector. You can then use this adapter to plug in any compatible electronic device you want to power.

For now, Tesla says that this only works for the Cybertruck and you have to buy the $300 mobile charging connector, which doesn’t come with the truck.

Electrek’s Take

I guess it’s better than nothing, but I’m still super disappointed in the new trim. It makes no sense right now.

Not only you lose the 2x 120V, 1x 240V outlets in the bed, but you also lose the 2x 120V outlets in the cabin. Now, you can can pay $380 to have a “Macgyver” solution for 2 120V outlets in the back.

I’m convinced that Tesla designed this trim simply to make the $80,000 Cybertruck AWD look better value-wise.

It looks like Tesla took out about $20,000 worth of features while giving buyers only a $10,000 discount.

It’s just the latest example of Tesla losing its edge.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Great news: IMO agrees to first-ever global carbon price on shipping

Published

on

By

Great news: IMO agrees to first-ever global carbon price on shipping

The International Maritime Organization, a UN agency which regulates maritime transport, has voted to implement a global cap on carbon emissions from ocean shipping and a penalty on entities that exceed that limit.

After a weeklong meeting of the Marine Environment Protection Committee of the IMO and decades of talks, countries have voted to implement binding carbon reduction targets including a gradually-reducing cap on emissions and associated penalties for exceeding that cap.

Previously, the IMO made another significant environmental move when it transitioned the entire shipping industry to lower-sulfur fuels in 2020, moving towards improving a longstanding issue with large ships outputting extremely high levels of sulfur dioxide emissions, which harm human health and cause acid rain.

Today’s agreement makes the shipping industry the first sector to agree on an internationally mandated target to reduce emissions along with a global carbon price.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

The agreement includes standards for greenhouse gas intensity from maritime shipping fuels, with those standards starting in 2028 and reducing through 2035. The end goal is to reach net-zero emissions in shipping by 2050.

Companies that exceed the carbon limits set by the standard will have to pay either $100 or $380 per excess ton of emissions, depending on how much they exceed limits by. These numbers are roughly in line with the commonly-accepted social cost of carbon, which is an attempt to set the equivalent cost borne by society by every ton of carbon pollution.

Money from these penalties will be put into a fund that will reward lower-emissions ships, research into cleaner fuels, and support nations that are vulnerable to climate change.

That means that this agreement represents a global “carbon price” – an attempt to make polluters pay the costs that they shift onto everyone else by polluting.

Why carbon prices matter

The necessity of a carbon price has long been acknowledged by virtually every economist. In economic terms, pollution is called a “negative externality,” where a certain action imposes costs on a party that isn’t responsible for the action itself. That action can be thought of as a subsidy – it’s a cost imposed by the polluter that isn’t being paid by the polluter, but rather by everyone else.

Externalities distort a market because they allow certain companies to get away with cheaper costs than they should otherwise have. And a carbon price is an attempt to properly price that externality, to internalize it to the polluter in question, so that they are no longer being subsidized by everyone else’s lungs. This also incentivizes carbon reductions, because if you can make something more cleanly, you can make it more cheaply.

Many people have suggested implementing a carbon price, including former republican leadership (before the party forgot literally everything about how economics works), but political leadership has been hesitant to do what’s needed because it fears the inevitable political backlash driven by well-funded propaganda entities in the oil industry.

For that reason, most carbon pricing schemes have focused on industrial processes, rather than consumer goods. This is currently happening in Canada, which recently (unwisely) retreated from its consumer carbon price but still maintains a price on the largest polluters in the oil industry.

But until today’s agreement by the IMO, there had been no global agreement of the same in any industry. There are single-country carbon prices, and international agreements between certain countries or subnational entities, often in the form of “cap-and-trade” agreements which implement penalties, and where companies that reduce emissions earn credits that they can then sell to companies that exceed limits (California has a similar program in partnership with with Quebec), but no previous global carbon price in any industry.

Carbon prices opposed by enemies of life on Earth

Unsurprisingly, entities that favor destruction of life on Earth, such as the oil industry and those representing it (Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the bought-and-paid oil stooge who is illegally squatting in the US Oval Office), opposed these measures, claiming they would be “unworkable.”

Meanwhile, island nations whose entire existence is threatened by climate change (along with the ~2 billion people who will have to relocate by the end of the century due to rising seas) correctly said that the move isn’t strong enough, and that even stronger action is needed to avoid the worse effects of climate change.

The island nations’ position is backed by science, the oil companies’ position is not.

While these new standards are historic and need to be lauded as the first agreement of their kind, there is still more work to be done and incentives that need to be offered to ensure that greener technologies are available to help fulfill the targets. Jesse Fahnestock, Director of Decarbonisation at the Global Maritime Forum, said: 

While the targets are a step forward, they will need to be improved if they are to drive the rapid fuel shift that will enable the maritime sector to reach net zero by 2050. While we applaud the progress made, meeting the targets will require immediate and decisive investments in green fuel technology and infrastructure. The IMO will have opportunities to make these regulations more impactful over time, and national and regional policies also need to prioritise scalable e-fuels and the infrastructure needed for long-term decarbonisation.

One potential solution could be IMO’s “green corridors,” attempts to establish net-zero-emission shipping routes well in advance of the IMO’s 2050 net-zero target.

And, of course, this is only one industry, and one with a relatively low contribution to global emissions. While the vast majority of global goods are shipped over the ocean, it’s still responsible for only around 3% of global emissions. To see the large emissions reductions we need to avoid the worst effects of climate change, other more-polluting sectors – like automotive, agriculture (specifically animal agriculture), construction and heating – all could use their own carbon price to help add a forcing factor to drive down their emissions.

Lets hope that the IMO’s move sets that example, and we see more of these industries doing the right thing going forward (and ignoring those enemies of life on Earth listed above).

The agreement still has to go through a final step of approval on October, but this looks likely to happen.


Even without a carbon price, many homeowners can save money on their electricity bills today by going solar. And if you’re considering going solar, it’s always a good idea to get quotes from a few installers. To make sure you find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. It has hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high-quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use, and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and share your phone number with them. 

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online and you’ll get access to unbiased Energy Advisors to help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Podcast: new Tesla Cybertruck, tariff mayhem, Lucid buys Nikola, and more

Published

on

By

Podcast: new Tesla Cybertruck, tariff mayhem, Lucid buys Nikola, and more

In the Electrek Podcast, we discuss the most popular news in the world of sustainable transport and energy. In this week’s episode, we discuss the new Tesla Cybertruck RWD, more tariff mayhem, Lucid buying Nikola, and more.

The show is live every Friday at 4 p.m. ET on Electrek’s YouTube channel.

As a reminder, we’ll have an accompanying post, like this one, on the site with an embedded link to the live stream. Head to the YouTube channel to get your questions and comments in.

After the show ends at around 5 p.m. ET, the video will be archived on YouTube and the audio on all your favorite podcast apps:

Advertisement – scroll for more content

We now have a Patreon if you want to help us avoid more ads and invest more in our content. We have some awesome gifts for our Patreons and more coming.

Here are a few of the articles that we will discuss during the podcast:

Here’s the live stream for today’s episode starting at 4:00 p.m. ET (or the video after 5 p.m. ET):

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending