It seems you're assuming (B) is the cost of an entire battery.

I would expect the consumable portion of the battery other than water would be in the form of replaceable rods or plates much like replacing a spark plug or a Diode.

They may want $15,000 for the entire battery, but the Tesla engineers are pretty bright people, and I am sure will find a solution that's easily maintainable. They must have something in mind so far, or I expect they wouldn't have taken it this far.

But you're right though, all this is at this point is speculation. I for one look forward to discovery and implementation of newer technologies. We won't know what will work and what won't until it's been put it on the market and tested 'in the wild'.

Having been a wrecker driver, I think the idea of a battery that goes completely dead on impact by it draining all it's water is beyond awesome. With electric cars these days just touching one of those things after a major accident could send you to the pearly gates.

This, Oh, to have Mod points for UP, THIS!

The Fluoride, not.

Other minerals in the water absolutely more healthy. If you drink pure water you MUST supplement or face much more grievous consequences than cavities.

I am expecting this Battery doesn't have a 15 gallons to fill either. Today's lead-water batteries only hold a couple of quarts.

I would expect the new batter to have a capacity maybe 2 to 3 times the size of a regular battery, which would be just about a gallon. Which would come to about 200 milers *per gallon*

Include a holding tank of water for refills on the road and you can extend that significantly. Perhaps even route the drip from the A/C into the tank ( or windshield reservoir ) and maybe save some weight.

That said, it would be an amazing circle for technology to have come around to the point of requiring water tanks to be carried at all times in order to move again. That would just be amazing, and tickles my imagination!

I have an image in my head of monster cables as big as my arm...

This. Pretty much sums it up. We can engineer all sorts of solutions but in the end they will be calling you to run it for them.

Don't let them try an barter services for it either, they will *own* you.

I see, and concede your point on quantity of deaths.

But I hold that allowing Non-kinetic-combatants to be dealt with kinetic force will only justify more carpet bombing. And whether or not we hold the title for most civilian deaths, we did also target civilians. I doubt that will be a limiting factor in future engagements either.

Hitler lost the war, because *we* didn't have 'too many scruples'. We outright targeted civilians, both in Germany and Japan.

This is why we won.

What nobody gets yet, is the scope of involvement in a 'cyber attack'. An ISP, or Cable technician can be seen as a combatant that's assisting the hacker by making sure the infrastructure is intact.

In order to destroy the infrastructure with 'kinetic response' means carpet bombing the hell out of the place since the infrastructure of the web is interwoven with everything else we enjoy in life.

If we allow kinetic response to individuals it's only going to get out of hand. Fast.

They ( We ) didn't even try, and we still have ' collateral damage'.

War is total. The side that knows this and practices to an unfair advantage it will be the winner.

The history of any war has been pretty much to kill anybody and everybody regardless of their combative status. The US is more guilty of this than any other country in the carpet bombing free-for-all that was Germany, and the firebombing / Nuking of Japan.

The list goes on and we all know what it is. Why should this topic spark any surprise or outrage, except that now it's *our specific* demographic that could be targeted with zero due process?

- Gary Keller.

So one has to wonder,

What were these CO2 numbers and their measurable impact during the Age of Coal? When London had a deadly fog? Or During WWII ? When Industry planet wide was not only churning out aircraft, bombs, tanks, and summarily attempting to burn as much fuel getting to point a to point b as quickly as possible to set everyone's crap on fire?

How can our level of much more efficient industry and not destroying everything we get our hands on ever top the levels of "Carbon Emissions" that came from producing factories building all these weapons of destruction and subsequent burning of factories, sinking of ships, And their associated oil spills?

Surely something like that would have left a mark we could record?

Gore created all this crap to profit from it. Here's a clip from the Environment and public works committee on what that was said there:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npimo1QK-4k&playnext=1&list=PL50A32D25EEFBC7BB&feature=results_main

Bottom line though, is global warming will continue to exist as long as there's money to be made from it.

Fking Mod this UP.

It's more likely they made a new element, rather than a new type of matter.

Pretty sure there would have been some pretty big explosions and readjustment to physics while matter, and anti-matter scoot aside for the new-comer.

Just sayin. :)

Wish I could edit posts.

THIS >>

http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3261203&cid=42040297