Tesla...

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: philipp10
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.


The total production pollution of a Model S is around the same level of a comparable car, lets say an Audi A8L with the 4.2, black, and that awesome Bang & Olufsen sound system I love.

 

[philipp10]

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 ? [/quote/}

There are two parts to this question:

Does a 300k Ferrari have more pollution built into its manufature: The answer is a resounding YES. In almost every measure, a 300k Ferrari uses more materials, more energy to build (basic inefficiency in manufacture) and in more labor (which equates to more energy usage). If everyone could purchase a 300k Ferrari, we would not have enough energy or labor hours to do it.

For a Tesla, its the same things as the Ferrari PLUS you have to consider the difference in technologies. For the Tesla, its manufacturing batteries and electrics motors and especially electronics. Are these more energy intensive? I am not sure but the money is going somewhare and you can bet its for energy and other energy intensive mining of minerals etc.

And BTW, the average car makes it more around 15 years, not 20.

 

[Shannow]

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.


That "40%" reeks of being wrong. New coal thermal in China are able to do that, not 50 year old fleet.

Here's some heat rate charts
http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html

Heat rate is an efficiency measure, which is what you put in compared to what you get out.

2013, the average heat rate for different electricity sources.
US Coal 10459 BTU/KWHr - corresponds to 32.7% thermal efficiency.
US Oil 10713 BTU/KWHr - corresponds to 31.9% thermal efficiency.
US Gas 7948 BTU/KWHr - corresponds to 42.9% thermal efficiency.
US Nuke 10449 BTU/KWHr - corresponds to 32.7% thermal efficiency.

So you've got to knock at least 20% of the blogged figures for electric car efficiency right there and then...34% becomes 27%.

As to renewables, here's a live line to the UK grid.

http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/

You can see how one of the places that's really best suited to EVs is powered, and what a shift would be required to run the show on renewables.

 

[Kiwi_ME]

Although I'm seeing on the page below, for natural gas combined cycle the heat rate is 7667 or 44.6%, I think the author of wait-but-why may have misread his reference where it refers to 60-ish percent improvements in HR rather than absolute HR.

http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_02.html

 

[Shannow]

KiwiME,
You are right...the heat rates in my link are fleet average, so they include thermal, and open cycle GT peakers...that's what's behind the improving trend in heat rate for gas.

There's plenty of them being advertised as 60% efficiency, but when you do the energy in/out, 50% is about it.

 

[Benito]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
what a shift would be required to run the show on renewables.


The Iraq war spending would have gotten us half way there.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/04/iraq-war-could-have-paid-for-100-renewable-power-grid/

 

[HTSS_TR]

Speculating On Batteries, Power, Price and Versions of Model 3:

344: Entry-level, single-motor, rear-wheel drive version, with a base price of $35,000, EPA range of 220 miles from a 44-kWh battery, and 0-to-60-mph time of 5.6 seconds

366D: Dual-motor AWD standard version with an EPA range of 320 miles from a 66-kWh battery. 0-60 time 4.7 seconds, price $44,000

P366D: 340-hp performance version with dual motors, AWD, a 300-mile EPA range, and 0-to-60 time of 3.1 seconds; priced with leather and a luxury interior at $60,000

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/s/tesla-mode...-121500633.html

The price of all versions are before $7,000 Federal rebate ? If it is then the base version without any option would be about $28,000 after Federal rebate. Some states have EV rebate too, California has $2,500 rebate brings the base model down to $25,500.

The question is for home charging do you need special outlet or you can use the existing outlet(s) ?

 

[Cujet]

A friend owns 2 Tesla's one of which is the "D" variant. It's a wonderful car to drive, and stupid fast off the line, with 690HP.

In essence, he powers both cars with an interesting grid tie solar array on top of his patio. I believe his solar array has an 8000W rating and regularly produces about 6800W.

While the solar power can't charge the cars from empty to full in a day, his driving patterns and transportation energy usage are fully offset by solar power, which in the end, was the goal.

With solar panels now below $1 per watt, I do believe it makes sense in many locations. People tend to discount just how much fuel a vehicle uses over it's lifetime. Fuel is a major operating expense.

Put another way, I believe his solar array provides about 35,000 miles of power per year, in total.

I remain impressed!

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
366D: Dual-motor AWD standard version with an EPA range of 320 miles from a 66-kWh battery. 0-60 time 4.7 seconds, price $44,000

Sounds pretty interesting if it can offer better/more engaging handling than a small BMW. And this should not be overly difficult to accomplish since modern BMWs aren't as fun to drive as they used to.

I'd probably still miss a manual trans, but who knows...

 

[HTSS_TR]

BMW 3-series handling is the benchmark for compact car for many years(probably decades), so far nobody matches it and I don't think Model 3 can either.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
BMW 3-series handling is the benchmark for compact car for many years(probably decades), so far nobody matches it and I don't think Model 3 can either.

Some car mags would disagree with that...

http://www.caranddriver.com/cadillac/ats

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/seda...on/viewall.html

But in reality, everyone should test drive them all and decide for themselves and not rely on a magazine to make that determination for you.

 

[Panzerman]

I am that arm chair scientist who doesn't believe the oil companies and limited oil. Why are so many "dead dinosaurs" in one location? Why does BP hit oil vein that are so powerful that it cant even control the flow and that's not the first time that happened. Its happened in Russia several times. You think oil is dead plant life??? We need a nuclear car, you refuel it every 200 years.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
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.

I have no idea what the Model 3 will look like, but I can assure you it won't be ugly like the I3.

My commute is 9 miles a day. If the reported prices are true, I'd be interested in a model 3.

 

[HTSS_TR]

I plan to replace the 15 years old 170k miles E430 within 2-3 years. If the speculating about Model 3 versions is accurate, I'll probably go with model 344, 200 miles range is adequate for 25 miles daily commute with occasionally 160-180 miles to San Diego.

The shortest range 344 is lighter and usually a lighter car is better handling than heavier versions 366D and P355D.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The shortest range 344 is lighter and usually a lighter car is better handling than heavier versions 366D and P355D.

Yes, the 344 is going to be about 150 lbs lighter than the 366D, if these predictions are true.

Thankfully, all that extra weight is not upfront because those larger batteries can be placed in other parts of the car.

 

[expat]

Originally Posted By: Panzerman
I am that arm chair scientist who doesn't believe the oil companies and limited oil. Why are so many "dead dinosaurs" in one location? Why does BP hit oil vein that are so powerful that it cant even control the flow and that's not the first time that happened. Its happened in Russia several times. You think oil is dead plant life??? We need a nuclear car, you refuel it every 200 years.


You might not believe this either, but it will answer your questions.

https://www.priweb.org/ed/pgws/systems/energy_capture/capture.html

I know a geologist (a close friend) who worked for a major oil company for over 30 years.
She has a few bad things to say about the oil industry, but I assure you, she was very good at her job and her job was to find oil based on the (extremely simplified) principals stated in the link above.

 

[super20dan]

if tesla had come out with the 4 door sedan first and not that worthless roadster they might have made stood a better chance

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: super20dan
if tesla had come out with the 4 door sedan first and not that worthless roadster they might have made stood a better chance

What do you mean by "stood a better chance"?

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: super20dan
if tesla had come out with the 4 door sedan first and not that worthless roadster they might have made stood a better chance

Not sure I agree. They know what they're doing. They had to come up with something initially for which they could charge high margins to help them realize that plan. It's hard to convince people to pay high $$$ for just another "4 door sedan," so they had to come up with something more flashy, like a sports car.

Quote:
Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) has a secret plan, first secretly announced back in 2006. Here it is.

So, in short, the master plan is:

Build sports car

Use that money to build an affordable car

Use that money to build an even more affordable car

While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options

Don't tell anyone.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: super20dan
if tesla had come out with the 4 door sedan first and not that worthless roadster they might have made stood a better chance

Not sure I agree. They know what they're doing. They had to come up with something initially for which they could charge high margins to help them realize that plan. It's hard to convince people to pay high $$$ for just another "4 door sedan," so they had to come up with something more flashy, like a sports car.

Quote:
Tesla Motors (NASDAQ:TSLA) has a secret plan, first secretly announced back in 2006. Here it is.

So, in short, the master plan is:

Build sports car

Use that money to build an affordable car

Use that money to build an even more affordable car

While doing above, also provide zero emission electric power generation options

Don't tell anyone.


I agree, Tesla's plan seems to work for them.

Last year they sold less than 50,000 cars while GM sold more than 5,000,000 worldwide (more than 100 times Tesla), but Tesla market cap is about 50% of GM.