Tesla to lay off 9% of its workforce.

Messages
6,748
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Originally Posted By: Lolvoguy
Only a matter of time until these alternate fuel vehicles become the norm.
Originally Posted By: cheesepuffs
Matter of time, but the question is how much time. Five years, or fifty years? Back in 2008, truck and SUV sales tanked, and fuel economy was the big push. Fast forward ten years and gas is cheap and few people can justify the trade offs of an electric vehicle, and truck sales are so strong that companies are stopping the sale of their car models, like Ford Fusion and Taurus, Chevy Impala, Dodge Dart, etc. Traditional internal combustion engines are better than ever and making alternative fuel vehicles a tough sell at the moment.
Exactly. It will never happen as long as gasoline is available at most every corner. And they are finding new reserves faster than we can deplete the old ones. For Tesla to have a chance, they have to get recharge times down to minutes, not hours. Or "the norm" who purchases cars out there isn't going to want anything to do with them. That is decades away, if it ever happens. Right now they're nothing but a impractical, fancy toy. Or at best, an overpriced about town, grocery getter for the family who already has 2 gasoline cars in a 3 car garage, and wants to, "make a statement". That market alone will never be enough to sustain Tesla. If it was they would be profitable by now.
 
Messages
19,679
Location
Sunny Florida
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
If it's popular in silicone valley it must be the future Lol. Yeah, a place where the rooftop solar is hugeley popular to "save" on electricity, but the houses have about the same amount of insulation as a shack in Cuba.
hahaha, we have the same issues in FL. Solar is going quite well, contractors are killing it.
 
Messages
4,515
Location
Los Gatos, CA
Fuel cells have a major problem; the cost to "fill up". Toyota pays for fuel on Murai leases. All the major car companies are developing alternative fuel vehicles. As far as Silicon Valley and CA go, we do lead the country. All the car makers test their new vehicles here first, sometimes also in New York. I am not sure I consider gas cheap at $3.50 per gallon. And I have 7 cars... From 2017 Accord to a 1968 L36 Corvette Roadster. If you do, wait till you try electric!
 
Messages
43,638
Location
'Stralia
Where do you get the "electric" from ? Like the hydrogen economy, we don't have any currently operating hydrogen mines. Ca leading the country...the time of use tarrifs are telling a story about where that leadership is leading the costs of electric transport. It's NOT free, and overnight "off peak" is an ancient artifact to the Ca energy economy. Your employer won't be giving you breaks to shuffle your cars off the charger, and your charging company will be charging you by the minute for every minute you leave it on there over your paid billing period for lost opportunity. And the personal transport (sin) taxes will apply as soon as there's enough critical mass of adopters to snowball that income stream. (the next flavour of being green will be driverless community/uber electric vehicles that don't need parking spaces...soon as they work out how to not kill people with their superior technology)
 
Messages
4,108
Location
IL/GA ,USA
Originally Posted By: billt460
Hydrogen consumes more energy to produce, than it supplies.
But but but but it's for the: - children - green aliens - clean air - tax savings - for future generations (remember hilderbrand?) - Bug Bunny - Marvin the MArtian - Willie Nelson
 
Messages
9,373
Location
Canuck living in California
The masses are led to believe that solar and wind are essentially free, so it doesn't matter home much we use, as long as we don't use the evil fossil fuels. That is why these pesky little details about efficiency can simply be omitted from the discussion. It's the same mantra with house insulation I mentioned earlier.
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,104
Location
PA,US
They seem to be selling quite well in my area, and from what I understand part of the issue is they can't make the model 3s fast enough. We have charging stations at work, as do several local companies. I know some power in our area comes from nuclear, but even if most of power comes from fossil fuels is it more efficient to generate electricity than for every car to burn it? I'm not sure but it seems like it may be. They are super practical for most people. 200+ mile range? Most people don't commute more than 50 miles a day in urban areas. Of course people in the country will have 100+ mile commutes each way. So for those it wont work. I've thought about trading the VW for a Bolt, or waiting to see how things shake out with the model 3. Everyone I know that owns one (well 3 people) love them.
 
Messages
1,978
Location
North Carolina
I just wonder how the parts supply chain is for Tesla. Can you go down to your local AA and get what you need if something happens. I would imagine brake pads are similar to other manufactures as well as shocks and bearings. But what about electronics? How long is your down time to fix? Granted most don't buy a Tesla as their primary vehicle but isn't that going to change say in the next 10 years?
 
Messages
43,082
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
but even if most of power comes from fossil fuels is it more efficient to generate electricity than for every car to burn it? I'm not sure but it seems like it may be.
If we are trying to reduce carbon emissions (let's keep this discussion independent from the merit of that approach for the time being) then moving it from the tailpipe to the smokestack does nothing for the end result. Yes, PA does produce a significant amount of its power via nuclear (which has no carbon emissions) however, that's currently under threat from what I recall. While there are nuclear plants being built and coming online elsewhere in the world the NIMBY and regulatory nature of North America has made it next to impossible for that to happen here. We are not immune to that north of the border either. Canada developed a reactor that will run on Thorium, spent US PWR fuel, MOX...etc. But the first place it was constructed and operated? China. Nuclear coupled with Hydro-Electric (where viable) has the ability to provide reliable, round-the-clock carbon-free electricity, which is absolutely necessary for successful EV market penetration. One of the primary problems aside from the regulatory Gong Show is the now-ballooned cost, which is a significant deterrent when the market is so volatile and you are relying on a strong long-term ROI to make your plan viable.
 
Messages
1,104
Location
PA,US
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
If we are trying to reduce carbon emissions (let's keep this discussion independent from the merit of that approach for the time being) then moving it from the tailpipe to the smokestack does nothing for the end result.
This may be a silly question, and one that I could perhaps research but... does it do something for the end result? For example (really rough numbers) for 10 cars to go 1000 miles each, it takes 333 gallons of refined fuel. At a fossil fuel plant (coal?) would it take the equivalent amount of fuel to generate the electricity needed for an EV to go that distance? Going a step further we could take into account the transportation fuel usage of transporting the fuel VS electricity. I'm certainly not saying it is more efficient doing this, but its possible. There may also be less "waste" in this way VS burning gas in traffic or idling (of course start/stop is promising there). Of course this doesn't take into account production of batteries, I'm just throwing stuff out there.
 
Messages
16,722
Location
NH
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
This may be a silly question, and one that I could perhaps research but... does it do something for the end result? For example (really rough numbers) for 10 cars to go 1000 miles each, it takes 333 gallons of refined fuel. At a fossil fuel plant (coal?) would it take the equivalent amount of fuel to generate the electricity needed for an EV to go that distance? Going a step further we could take into account the transportation fuel usage of transporting the fuel VS electricity.
Trying googling well to wheel. You may find what you are after there.
 
Messages
2,079
Location
Juno Beach FL
Last year, NY State announced the future closing of its Indian Point nuclear electricity generators. They will need to be replaced by fossil fuel burning generators when that happens.
 
Messages
2,079
Location
Juno Beach FL
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
If we are trying to reduce carbon emissions (let's keep this discussion independent from the merit of that approach for the time being) then moving it from the tailpipe to the smokestack does nothing for the end result.
This may be a silly question, and one that I could perhaps research but... does it do something for the end result? For example (really rough numbers) for 10 cars to go 1000 miles each, it takes 333 gallons of refined fuel. At a fossil fuel plant (coal?) would it take the equivalent amount of fuel to generate the electricity needed for an EV to go that distance? Going a step further we could take into account the transportation fuel usage of transporting the fuel VS electricity. I'm certainly not saying it is more efficient doing this, but its possible. There may also be less "waste" in this way VS burning gas in traffic or idling (of course start/stop is promising there). Of course this doesn't take into account production of batteries, I'm just throwing stuff out there.
These are the things that need to be studied, and probably should have been studied before federal grants for purchasing EV's were voted into place. Of course, once the words "green", "renewable", "climate change" and "environment" get tossed about, common sense disappears and a groundswell of support builds based strictly on those words rather than a careful assessment of the pros and cons. Maybe EVs are a positive, but we do not actually know yet.
 
Messages
43,082
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
If we are trying to reduce carbon emissions (let's keep this discussion independent from the merit of that approach for the time being) then moving it from the tailpipe to the smokestack does nothing for the end result.
This may be a silly question, and one that I could perhaps research but... does it do something for the end result? For example (really rough numbers) for 10 cars to go 1000 miles each, it takes 333 gallons of refined fuel. At a fossil fuel plant (coal?) would it take the equivalent amount of fuel to generate the electricity needed for an EV to go that distance? Going a step further we could take into account the transportation fuel usage of transporting the fuel VS electricity. I'm certainly not saying it is more efficient doing this, but its possible. There may also be less "waste" in this way VS burning gas in traffic or idling (of course start/stop is promising there). Of course this doesn't take into account production of batteries, I'm just throwing stuff out there.
The efficiency of a coal-fired generating station is somewhere between 30 and 40% depending on a few factors including age. Let's look at the lower end of the spectrum: 1kWh of electricity has a heat rate of 3,412 Btu, so a 33% efficient coal plant would require 10,500 Btu to produce 1kWh of electricity. 1lb of Coal "A" has a thermal capacity of 12,500 Btu (others are higher) So, ignoring transmission losses, to charge your 90kWh Tesla would require 307,080 Btu, which, through our 33% efficiency coal plant, would actually require 945,000 Btu of coal, or 75.6lbs. This will yield a range of 303 miles (EPA), or 4 miles per lb of coal or 3,118 Btu per mile. CO2 emissions for various coals vary, but for the sake of this discussion, we'll say we are at roughly 204lbs per million BTU, so our Tesla puts out 192.78lbs of CO2 indirectly via our coal plant when covering 303 miles. There are 125,000 Btu in a gallon of gasoline. A good sized sedan like say an Accord, has an EPA rating of 33Mpg combined, which gives us 3,788 Btu per mile CO2 emissions for gasoline, by the EPA, are listed as 20lbs per gallon. Our 303 mile range would require 9.18 gallons of gasoline, which would produce 183.64lbs of CO2 directly via our tail pipe. So, the difference is pretty insignificant if the focus is on CO2 emissions. Of course sulphur emissions are a whole other discussion.
 
Messages
6,748
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Originally Posted By: HemiHawk
......They seem to be selling quite well in my area, and from what I understand part of the issue is they can't make the model 3s fast enough.
What exactly does, "seem to be selling quite well"...... And, "can't make them fast enough", really mean? Let's examine the numbers. Tesla manufacturers approximately 3,145 model 3's per week. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018-tesla-tracker/ In comparison 6,500 new pickups are sold EVERY DAY in America. Or roughly 270 per hour. http://www.thedrive.com/new-cars/11278/6500-new-pickup-trucks-are-sold-every-day-in-america So when we use terms like, "selling quite well", and, "can't make them fast enough", it's really not saying much. The fact is it's a small, all but non existent sliver of the actual new vehicle market in this country. And there is no guarantee they can even make that many. There simply isn't enough of these things on the road now, or in the future to make any sort of difference. And I'm talking about the whole EV market. Including the Chevy Volt, (of which I have yet to see a single one on the road), or the Nissan Leaf, of which I've seen a grand total of 2. And I have never seen a Tesla of ANY kind anywhere.
 
Messages
6,748
Location
Lake Havasu City, Arizona
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
.......So, ignoring transmission losses, to charge your 90kWh Tesla would require 307,080 Btu, which, through our 33% efficiency coal plant, would actually require 945,000 Btu of coal, or 75.6lbs. This will yield a range of 303 miles (EPA), or 4 miles per lb of coal or 3,118 Btu per mile......
I wonder how that compares to turn of the century railroad steam engines?
 
Messages
43,082
Location
Ontario, Canada
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
.......So, ignoring transmission losses, to charge your 90kWh Tesla would require 307,080 Btu, which, through our 33% efficiency coal plant, would actually require 945,000 Btu of coal, or 75.6lbs. This will yield a range of 303 miles (EPA), or 4 miles per lb of coal or 3,118 Btu per mile......
I wonder how that compares to turn of the century railroad steam engines?
I'd assume they were significantly less efficient given they aren't comprised of progressive expansion chambers spinning turbines, but it's an interesting question. Of course then there's the bunker fuel burning container ships constantly running the globe, which, since they are a much smaller target volume-wise, would seem to be a logical target here but.... shrug To quote the Euro Nuke folks:
Quote:
With a complete combustion or fission, approx. 8 kWh of heat can be generated from 1 kg of coal, approx. 12 kWh from 1 kg of mineral oil and around 24,000,000 kWh from 1 kg of uranium-235
And that's once-through the reactor and doesn't factor in reprocessing. If we really wanted to displace fossil sources, that's a staggering statistic.
 
Top