Actually, it's pretty funny that those who carried out this short range trip have actually provided excellent proof that the Model S is incapable of extended travel on our Interstates, although I'm sure they didn't realize it : Driving 55 on an Interstate? No AC usage? Using a brand new battery? No loading of a car supposedly in a vacation travel situation? No rain? No non-city Interstates have a 55 (or even a 60) MPH posted limit. Over 85% are posted at 70 MPH or above. Tesla's own data shows their
car's range, using moderate AC but otherwise ideal driving conditions achieving ranges (at 65/70/75 MPH) of 236/217/200 miles when new, 219/201/185 at 4.5 years of age. You'll never achieve those ranges on an extended trip needing recharges

Anyone who implies that nuclear power is expensive simply isn't qualified to have an opinion on the subject. U.S. utilities have already begun building what will be 4 new reactors and over 30 more are either in the planning or certification stages. China has 600 reactors planned by 2035 and 1800 by the end of the century. England has already allocated three parcels of land for over 25 reactors. India is also going strong, although they are
following a closed fuel cycle strategy. France has begun replacing all their nuclear fleet, half being fast reactor Generation 4 types. UAE in the Middle East has also ordered reactors. Nuclear power is by far the cheapest source of energy
and produces less than half the carbon emissions of solar panels

The planet has been cooling slightly for the past 15 years, folks. Pointing to what is falsely claimed to be a record breaking summer warmth in a tiny portion of the planet means zilch. The Watts, et al 7 year study released a few weeks ago documented with indisputable clarity the extent to which NOAA and other climate orgs have been using invalid weather station temperature readings in their claims of past, current and future estimates of warming. Those invalid claims of record summer warmth are based on that invalid CONUS recording data network.
Buttressing this view are satellite readings of U.S. shoreline ocean temperatures via satellite, and not polluted by weather station siting issues - they show no record warmth.

Those styling costs must have come it at about $37. They've shrunk their Camaro. That's about it , folks.

This may be the first time I ever heard someone announce as a breakthru an event with a 50/50 chance of occurrence. Other, more impressive battery technologies are closer at hand and have far better than "50/50" chances. What's often most important is what ISN'T mentioned. The size of a battery that's acceptable does not simply depend upon its range, but its speed of recharge. I note no mention here of recharge speed, meaning it's probably not very fast. Normal silicon claims are for 9 times the density, not 3. Also no mention of deterioration rates or power, a bad sign. And the Tesla's "265 mile range" is illusory where really needed : Don't even think about an extended trip in a Model S, regardless of battery size, or you'll be sorry

As an observer of all fields of current and future energy technologies, I'd say that the likelihood that cold fusion ever
achieves commercialization (much less is competitive)is about the same as that of his 85kWh Model S traveling the posted limits on a Texas rural Interstate Highway and achieving a driving range of 220 miles.

The problem this car faces is what Musk has been avoiding - tests that demonstrate that Tesla's "300 mile" range is an impossible dream when driving on actual interstate highways, or with the air conditioner or heater running, or hilly terrain, or a full load, or all of the above. Not to mention the yearly decline due to battery deterioration. Owners will be shocked,I'm quite certain.

As a postscript, my estimates for driving range was for a vehicle with a new battery pack. If yearly capacity losses were known (and constant) then the estimates could be revised to show year by year declines in range. I am also unaware of how much power loss is experienced each year.

As far as likely problems to impact sales, after doing some calculations, I think its going to be actual highway diving range as measured by the automags.First I examined Tesla's range chart, which assumed ideal conditions (constant speed,300 lbs aboard,
windows up,level terrain,no AC/heat) and adjusted for interior air conditioning using Musk's claim of 5 to 10 percent. Since higher speeds reduce the impact, I choose the 55 MPH range and used 10% and then adjusted downward as MPH increased. This provided ranges under ideal conditions (AC/heat on) of 270,239,218 & 208 miles for 55,60,70&75MPH. Then, using EPA's range, obtained 242,210,189 and 180 miles of range. We need actual test data. Down here the interstate speed limits are 70
and 75.

As a onetime inferential statistician, as well as an observer of human behavior, I can say that when a new technology has arrived, be it PC computers, cellphones, whatever, the opinions of enthusiastic early adopters must be taken with a grain of salt : they are less likely to voice complaints than those who follow later on. Part of it is because people often don't like to admit that they had overrated the product, and part of it is to not appear to have been taken, since the first new technology products are usually pricey. What's needed for product research (companies want to know the truth so they can avoid spending a lot of money pushing a product that will flop) are test subjects with no opinion of the product, good or bad.