Tesla...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm a little bias(positive) toward Tesla. I may wait few years for Model 3, $35k and 200+ miles range is pretty good for our use, as long as it doesn't look as gross as BMW I3, Chevy Bolt or Nissan Leaf.

But I like to point out to 1 error in this blog and in many other articles about Supercharger Station. They are actually not free as mentioned in many articles, the owners either pay $2,000 option for lower lines Model-S, or the $2,000 option is included in the MSRP of top of the line Model-S, to gain access to Supercharger Station.

Also, if an owner uses a nearby Supercharger Station regularly(more than 1-2 times a week) his access to this station may be revoked.

Supercharger Stations are supposed to be used only for long distance travelers, not local owners.
 
Originally Posted By: philipp10
Personally not that impressed with the Tesla. Even at 35k it’s a huge premium over a convention car. I can get a similar mass market car in the 22k range and the 12k covers a lot of gasoline. As far as saving the earth? Don’t buy it either. That 35k includes a fair amount of energy just to manufacture the car.

Nobody know what Model-3 will look like, but I think and hope it doesn't look as gross as BMW I3.

If you're not impress with Tesla(any model) then you're probably not impress with any EV, plug-in hybrid or hybrid either.

There are pros and cons of non-conventional cars and conventional cars. In the end, you spend your money the way you think it is best for you.

The energy to build an EV is not much different with conventional vehicle, the energy to operate it is another story. Most EV's are rated around 90 E-MPG or better, none of the conventional vehicles are better than 50 MPG.
 
Excellent appraisal of the article, surfstar.

The writing nicely covers the social and economic dynamics that lead us to where we are today, not quite backed into a corner but very close. It's a long but entertaining read for those who are willing to take the time.

Anyone who has been following the climate change issue closely via reliable sources - and has sufficient science education to make it understandable would see that overall it's actually pretty obvious that we have a major problem on our hands that will make human life far less comfortable by mid century and likely far, far longer. It's also apparent that we are getting past the point where economic-drive solutions could change things fast enough - it may require an adjustment of our western standard of living. For those who don't understand the science, or allow themselves to be programmed by fox news, etc, you might ask yourself how informed and relevant your opinion on this subject really is?

Nothing will change significantly until the majority of the world's population get on board. Thankfully, the expected effects on weather are starting to show up in leaps and bounds and that should help get attention, but we should all be aware that we are only at the very start of seeing the visible effects and many issues such as loss of polar ice may make life difficult for many centuries after we make the required adjustments.
 
Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: philipp10
Personally not that impressed with the Tesla. Even at 35k it’s a huge premium over a convention car. I can get a similar mass market car in the 22k range and the 12k covers a lot of gasoline. As far as saving the earth? Don’t buy it either. That 35k includes a fair amount of energy just to manufacture the car.


All true. And the last line is the best.

How much energy and waste will the Gigafactory be responsible for...

Cars in general are a "wasteful". I don't know if building a F150 or Tesla uses more energy, but atleast once the Tesla is built, it could be powered by renewables.
Getting nice refined fossil fuels into our gas tanks isn't without a cost as well. Tar sands and shale oil aren't free to get out the ground, the $30-60 per barrel cost of production isn't spent all on CEO bonuses. It takes machinery, chemicals, which takes energy to make and transport and dispose of.
If the full environmental cost was accounted for, I would think an electric vehicle powered by locally produced renewable electricity is less expensive than maintaining the global fossil fuel infrastructure for production, refining, and distribution, for a gas car.


The dirty little secret is, it takes huge amounts of energy and nasty chemicals to manufacture batteries and solar panels.....why do you think a Tesla runs 80K? Same for the Prius. Much of the costs is upfront energy costs. I argue that the least environmental costs are also the lowest dollar costs, which would say purchase a small compact 3 cylinder car. This is not an easy or clear cut issue that can be resolved by buying an electric car without a lot of analysis.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
Last I looked, burning coal and natural gas accounts for a good chunk of electicity generation. Diesel oil, or #2 oil is still used in some plants.


Guess what large power plants are very good at? Efficiency. Taking electricity from a power plant and putting it into your car for fuel, is much more efficient than extracting oil from the ground, refining it into gasoline, transferring it into a tank in the ground, then into your car, which then burns it, quite inefficiently, as fuel.

So look a little harder.


Then why is the total life cycle cost of an electric car higher than a conventional car? Follow the money...
 
Another person with a closed mind against other folks ideas. So what's new. I watch FNC, FBC, CNN, CNBC, occasionally CBS and other open minded venues. I DONOT watch msnbc, nbc, abc and and all the various left wing radical outlets. I am not programed by anyone.

I don't have any professional degrees, I am 78 years old and have a degree in life. No one needs any type of degree to be a scientist. Science is a process, a way of studying an issue to find truth. I have been studying climate change for 10 years now. I will continue to do so for another 20, god willing.

Climate change is a fact. It has always been so, and will continue to be so until the earth dies. Without a doubt man has caused changes, primarily by creating more people. Man has huge effects on local ecosystems. cities are a prime example. They are massive heat islands. Agriculture affects large areas the world. There are numerous other examples. Eliminate fossil fuels and then what? People will strip the land for fuel and burn it all in an attempt to survive. Witness Haiti.

So what should we do? How about WW3, with todays technology we should be able to eliminate 1/3 of the earth's people. Of course, the side effects will very likely drive humanity back to the stone age. Cover all the available spaces with with wind mills and solar panels? Not going to happen.

So, come up with your own ideas, and make sure that you consider all the consequences, including the unintended ones.

Your turn.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
Last I looked, burning coal and natural gas accounts for a good chunk of electicity generation. Diesel oil, or #2 oil is still used in some plants.


Guess what large power plants are very good at? Efficiency. Taking electricity from a power plant and putting it into your car for fuel, is much more efficient than extracting oil from the ground, refining it into gasoline, transferring it into a tank in the ground, then into your car, which then burns it, quite inefficiently, as fuel.

So look a little harder.



Large power plants are around 40% efficient. All that vapor you see rising from the cooling tower is waste heat.
 
This is enjoyable. Anti-fossil fuel on an oil forum. Show of hands... How many anti-oil/fossil fuel people on here believe their synthetic oil does not come out of the ground?
 
Originally Posted By: Olas
I'm not pro or anti, but I do believe my synthetic oil comes out of a lab in CA.


Yea it does! I can't tell if you're being serious or not.
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
] It is supposed to be net zero, once built.


No bias here. Just skepticism whenever a business that is basically supported by tax credits gives out promotional information. I'd be very proud of tesla if his primary source of income wasn't Government support.

And the ridiculous elitist comments are the best! It is truly amazing to hear comments ridiculing anyone who doesn't squeal with delight over alternative energy hype. Such egotism, vanity, conceit. Making fun of folks who disagree is a fundamental tool of the greenies, shows how weak their arguments are.

Just like with climate science. Who did the figures? Who paid for them? These are questions that all folks should be far more interested in than what is basically advertising hype...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: bvance554
This is enjoyable. Anti-fossil fuel on an oil forum. Show of hands... How many anti-oil/fossil fuel people on here believe their synthetic oil does not come out of the ground?


I am not anti or pro fossil fuel. What I am is for the lowest cost, most efficient system that delivers transportation. And right now, clearly, gasoline driven cars still win out over electrics, although the gap is closing. And again, it is my contention that the lowest cost system IS ALSO the lowest in pollution. I would argue that a Tesla is more polluting than a Honda Accord based upon it's total life cycle costs....
 
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
Last I looked, burning coal and natural gas accounts for a good chunk of electicity generation. Diesel oil, or #2 oil is still used in some plants.


Guess what large power plants are very good at? Efficiency. Taking electricity from a power plant and putting it into your car for fuel, is much more efficient than extracting oil from the ground, refining it into gasoline, transferring it into a tank in the ground, then into your car, which then burns it, quite inefficiently, as fuel.

So look a little harder.


It is easy enough to toss around statements such as "much more". Can you quantify, even if only a ballpark estimate how much is "much more"
 
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
Last I looked, burning coal and natural gas accounts for a good chunk of electicity generation. Diesel oil, or #2 oil is still used in some plants.


Guess what large power plants are very good at? Efficiency. Taking electricity from a power plant and putting it into your car for fuel, is much more efficient than extracting oil from the ground, refining it into gasoline, transferring it into a tank in the ground, then into your car, which then burns it, quite inefficiently, as fuel.

So look a little harder.


It is easy enough to toss around statements such as "much more". Can you quantify, even if only a ballpark estimate how much is "much more"


I think that's a valid question. I did a quick Google out of curiosity and found this article: http://truecostblog.com/2009/01/04/electric-vs-gasoline/

At the very bottom, it says:

Footnotes:

[1] Electrical energy is created by burning fossil fuels in a power plant at 40% efficiency, followed by transmitting it to your house at 93% efficiency, and using it in an electric vehicle at 92% efficiency, providing a total efficiency of around 34% for an electric vehicle. Crude oil refineries operate at 75% efficiency, and gasoline distribution might cause another 6% energy loss. Since internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, total efficiency would be around 14%. Assuming that the natural gas and oil to power our vehicles comes from the same well, we can directly compare these efficiencies, and thus conclude that electric vehicles are significantly more efficient.


Obviously no reference or anything, but it's something. I imagine if the power was from some other source (solar/wind/nuclear), the 34% would be higher.
 
Originally Posted By: EdwardC

Footnotes:

[1] Electrical energy is created by burning fossil fuels in a power plant at 40% efficiency, followed by transmitting it to your house at 93% efficiency, and using it in an electric vehicle at 92% efficiency, providing a total efficiency of around 34% .


I think they forgot to include battery efficiency.
 
Originally Posted By: Nate1979
Cost is not related to most polluting.


How do you know that. A Tesla today runs 80k, a Nissan Leaf, 36k (before tax break)....where do you suppose all this money spent is going? Lots is for energy and mining of specialty minerals etc.....Then there are the cost to dispose of the chemicals in the manufacture of said batteries and electronics. There is no free ride here cause they are battery powered.
 
Last edited:
Let say a vehicle lifetime is 20 years 300k miles, a compact EV does not consume more energy than a compact gas burning vehicle, from manufacture to daily use.

If an EV lifetime uses more energy than conventional vehicle then why Federal government has rebate up to $7500 for buying an EV ?

The selling price of a vehicle has nothing to do with energy/pollution.

A $300k Ferrari pollutes ten times a Mazda Miata that cost $30k ?

A $100k Mercedes S-Class pollutes 3 time $30k C-Class ?
 
Originally Posted By: EdwardC
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
Originally Posted By: surfstar
Originally Posted By: SeaJay
Last I looked, burning coal and natural gas accounts for a good chunk of electicity generation. Diesel oil, or #2 oil is still used in some plants.


Guess what large power plants are very good at? Efficiency. Taking electricity from a power plant and putting it into your car for fuel, is much more efficient than extracting oil from the ground, refining it into gasoline, transferring it into a tank in the ground, then into your car, which then burns it, quite inefficiently, as fuel.

So look a little harder.


It is easy enough to toss around statements such as "much more". Can you quantify, even if only a ballpark estimate how much is "much more"


I think that's a valid question. I did a quick Google out of curiosity and found this article: http://truecostblog.com/2009/01/04/electric-vs-gasoline/

At the very bottom, it says:

Footnotes:

[1] Electrical energy is created by burning fossil fuels in a power plant at 40% efficiency, followed by transmitting it to your house at 93% efficiency, and using it in an electric vehicle at 92% efficiency, providing a total efficiency of around 34% for an electric vehicle. Crude oil refineries operate at 75% efficiency, and gasoline distribution might cause another 6% energy loss. Since internal combustion engines are only 20% efficient, total efficiency would be around 14%. Assuming that the natural gas and oil to power our vehicles comes from the same well, we can directly compare these efficiencies, and thus conclude that electric vehicles are significantly more efficient.


Obviously no reference or anything, but it's something. I imagine if the power was from some other source (solar/wind/nuclear), the 34% would be higher.


Correct and a lot of states don't get the majority of their power from coal, a lot comes from natural gas and other sources. Again the article goes into this in great depth. Overall coal accounts for 39% of US domestic energy production and is decreasing.

MPG-Map.jpg


Again lifted from the article because no one seems to want to invest the time to actually read up on the subject. This is where we are now, also lets compare apples to apples. The Model S does not compete with a 40mpg Civic, It competes with a 20mpg S550.

So in all states its ahead of the S550, and in some its out of the ball park ahead.

Now this is at today's power generation numbers which again as it was spelled out in the article are improving. Musk wants to drastically increase solar generation which would throw those MPG's averages by state up into the thousands literally.

I disagree with Musk I don't think solar is the total solution, but I do think it can be a pretty big chunk of the US energy pie:
Screen-Shot-2015-05-28-at-4.56.42-PM.png


SolarCity is an electric generation company no different than oh lets say CL&P. The only difference is instead of building power plants they are using already existing structures IE your houses roof, and putting generation on them, ie solar panels. Lets see if it works.

Interestingly its actually much closer to Edison's idea for the grid, IE local generation and in Edison's case DC. Edison's idea with Tesla's current?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top