Wana see a Tesla humiliate some drag cars?

[OVERKILL]

The other elephant in the room is fuel taxes. A large portion of our infrastructure is built and maintained via the funding provided by the taxation of gasoline and diesel. As more and more vehicles become electrified, that income drops. Electricity prices or some other scheme will then need to be increased to make up for that lost revenue. There's no free lunch. Look at our European friends and some of the rates they pay for electricity, particularly Germany or Denmark which are creeping up on $0.50/kWh.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: billt460
It's more the all wheel drive, along with the weight balance, then it is electric power. None of the gas cars could hook up, and put the power they were making to the road. Wheel spin and tire smoke sounds and looks good. But it doesn't win races.


It is exactly that. There's one guy who goes off about the surface late on in the video, he can't hook up, none of them can. Heck, many of those cars may be significantly faster than the Tesla on an actual track with ta properly prep'd surface. This was orchestrated for a purpose and judging by most of the feedback in the thread, the architect succeeded.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Claud
Has anyone seen any timing slips for a Tesla going down a regular dragstrip?. I'm curious as to what its 1/4 mile time and terminal speed might be.
At one time an electric road going vehicle held the land speed record, as did a steam powered car too.
Clearly electric vehicles have tremendous potential, but they need the enormous amount of R&D that gasoline powered vehicles had to evolve from the crude curiosities of the 19th century to the sophisticated machines of today.

Claud.


The P90D, with Ludicrous Mode has, with a good driver, in factory stripper config, run high 10's, with the best run being a 10.8 according to Road and Track:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/...d-quarter-mile/

The P100D, which was the car featured in the video, has, under ideal circumstances with a massive generator charging it between runs, run a 10.7 @ 122Mph:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a31313/tesla-model-s-p100d-quarter-mile-world-record/


Is it fast? Yes. Are there faster cars? Also yes. A stock HellCat runs a comparable ET on decent street-legal rubber, however since we are talking "records" here, a stock HellCat has run a best of 10.56 @ 130Mph:
https://www.torquenews.com/106/new-hellcat-dodge-stock-power-14-mile-record-set-michigan

The new Demon runs in the 9's off the showroom floor @ 140Mph, and there are plenty of modified Fox bodies, LSx cars and the like that are faster.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: Claud
Has anyone seen any timing slips for a Tesla going down a regular dragstrip?. I'm curious as to what its 1/4 mile time and terminal speed might be.
At one time an electric road going vehicle held the land speed record, as did a steam powered car too.
Clearly electric vehicles have tremendous potential, but they need the enormous amount of R&D that gasoline powered vehicles had to evolve from the crude curiosities of the 19th century to the sophisticated machines of today.

Claud.


The P90D, with Ludicrous Mode has, with a good driver, in factory stripper config, run high 10's, with the best run being a 10.8 according to Road and Track:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/motorsports/...d-quarter-mile/


Not sure how many of them they can do before Tesla does the same thing as the fast charge stations and pulls the power for protection of batteries etc.

https://electrek.co/2016/12/23/tesla-limiting-power-performance-launch-mode/

Quote:
After having quite a few owners worry about the situation, a Tesla Model S P90D owner claiming to be affected by the exact situation added to the discussion:

“Unfortunately I’m here to say this is true. My car was limited just after the 8.0 update and at first I was convinced it was related to that. I did lots of testing and emailed Tesla my findings. Before this limitation my car would pull around 1600 amps from the battery and 512 KW of power when fully charged, now the car will only pull around 1500 amps and 480 KW of power, a loss of about 40 HP on a 4 month old car.”

He then shared the response he received from a Tesla representative:

“Thank you for your time. To recap our conversation, using launch mode places an increased stress on the entire powertrain accelerating aging and fatigue of various components. The computer systems automatically track launch mode usage and continually estimate fatigue damage. Depending on how launch mode is used, the computer may eventually limit the available power during launch mode to protect the powertrain. Note that this is a common strategy also employed in other high performance cars. As discussed, upgrading to the P100D ludicrous will remove this limit and will not be limited in the future as the P100D does not have this limit for launch mode.”


Yep, a Cherokee SRT will start breaking stuff too if you use launch control at every traffic light.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The other elephant in the room is fuel taxes. A large portion of our infrastructure is built and maintained via the funding provided by the taxation of gasoline and diesel. As more and more vehicles become electrified, that income drops. Electricity prices or some other scheme will then need to be increased to make up for that lost revenue. There's no free lunch. Look at our European friends and some of the rates they pay for electricity, particularly Germany or Denmark which are creeping up on $0.50/kWh.


If these things ever get popular, the government will find a way to tax every kilowatt that goes into their batteries. The will have their home chargers put on separate meters. Along with "charging stations" collecting tax on them. There is no way they'll allow tax free charging. If necessary they'll administer a special Federal tax on any electric vehicle license plate.

You will never beat the Federal, or state governments at collecting taxes. Just look at Internet shopping on Amazon, Wayfair, and others. They are now starting to come up with foolproof ways of collecting sales tax. Regardless of where you live vs. what state you are shopping in. Because they are suffering to much lost sales tax revenue on Internet shopping. By the time all is said and done, the cost per mile will not be any cheaper over gas. They will create a tax base that assures this.

 

[Shannow]

Oz has already seen the fuel tax thing.

If I have a heating system on my house that uses diesel (some do), then I'm not allowed to own diesel cars...if I do, then the transport excise is paid on every ounce of diesel that enters the property.

Honda and the gas industry in the 80s/90s started setting up homes to run their cars on Compressed Natural Gas...the Govt then decided that the same rules would apply as for diesel...every cuf of gas entering the property was to be taxed at the transport rate.

There's no way that they are going to not tax transport with electricity (after picking it as a winner through legislation).

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Did you learn to read the stories you linked to?

I thought insults were your tools of trade, just responding in the manner that you seem to prefer when addressing people.


That was a genuine question!

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Yes, the people who run the grids are running scared at present.

See my posts on the great South Australian experiment, where ideology has been trumping engineering for a decade...they have blackouts, and the most expensive power in the country.

And (btw, NG isn't the carbon free future, is it ?)

My diesel Colorado is going to consume diesel in the next 5 years to produce the carbon footprint of a Tesla battery...and if that battery is charged with NG electricity, where's the green ?

HTS_TR used to use the silly strawman that he could run his car on the dyno in his garage and not suffocate...while his neighbour with the generator at the other end of the extension cord clearly is.

And YES, your electricity WILL become more expensive...when DEMAND goes up, what happens before supply does in any market ?

Subsidised renewables push out traditional power...that's a fact...then they get really expensive...

Smart guys at AEMO (Australian market operators) have done the sums, and the wholesale prices doubled...

http://reneweconomy.com.au/100-renewables-for-australia-not-so-costly-after-all-50218/


What you are not factoring into your costs are what do emissions cost in health outcomes.

And like I said, there is a lot of time to go for this transition and to find the right mix, including nuclear. In the UK, wind power has already just become cheaper than nuclear thanks to economies of scale and improved know how. The costs of alternative energy will keep on going down over time.

The other thing to consider in terms of costs is this. Capital investment now comes up with a cost of electricity in today's money. Two decades down the line, the cost of everything else will have gone up, including the cost of healthcare from poor air quality. The cost of electricity will not rise. Innovation will continue to be a downward force.

The calculations that accountants do which you are citing, do not factor in externalities nor the impact of innovation on future investment. These are not the basis of decisions about structurally changing the energy industry. If you had performed a calculation on solar energy costs before the Chinese got involved, it would not have looked good. The fact that wind power is now cheaper than nuclear in the UK is because of innovation over time. Apply this concept to any industry. Had you used the fact that a computer was the size of a large room in the 1950s, and assumed that to be static and would never improve, you would have pulled all research on computer hardware development.

I get what you are saying about the relative costs and the storage issues. I really do. But the movement to cleaner energy is happening and there is scope both in reducing the costs and there is an ability to absorb higher energy costs especially when the trade off is avoiding adverse health and climate outcomes. The doom and gloom may be valid as countries or states initially execute this poorly, but the bigger and longer term picture does not have to be bound by what you see now.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Shannow


Yep, a Cherokee SRT will start breaking stuff too if you use launch control at every traffic light.


Exactly. AWD, traction and a ton of power is hard on stuff.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: Shannow
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Did you learn to read the stories you linked to?

I thought insults were your tools of trade, just responding in the manner that you seem to prefer when addressing people.


That was a genuine question!


Oh, OK, so was mine...and I think from the following that the answer was no.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
In the UK, wind power has already just become cheaper than nuclear thanks to economies of scale and improved know how. The costs of alternative energy will keep on going down over time.


That's what I keep trying to explain to you people (or you, if this is your second incarnation).

1,000MW of traditional power can produce 1,000MW 24/7, 24,000MWh in a 24 hour period.

1,000MW of solar produces 6,000MWh in the same period.
1,000MW of ideally situated wind produces 8,000MWh in that period.

So to REPLACE 1,000MW of traditional power, you need 4,000MW of solar, or 3,000MW of wind...it's that simple...and then you need somewhere to stor it until it's used.

The lines "wind is cheaper than nuclear" are when wind is in the disruptive phase...yes, they put them in, and harvest the energy and revenue...and it's cheap.

But WHEN (not if) they have to replace traditional power, they can't be cheap. You HAVE TO install multiple times the nameplate rating of the technology ousted, and store the energy until needed.

that is exactly why I say that on windy sunny days, off peak will be midday, and midnight charging will be very expensive. I've spoke to market analysts and traders, and they agree with my assessment.

There will be no orderly transition,as the "step" change when the traditional power sources roll out has to be met with massive capital investment.

It's simple math, but it's the elephant in the room that certain groups who believe in unicorns refuse to see...and their media of choice fob it off as alarmist.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Tesla has turned out to be a good bet. The gigafactory is forecast to generate $100bn for the Nevada economy over 2 decades.

They open sourced their technology a while ago. India wants to phase out petrol and diesel by 2030. UK and France by 2040. China is now looking at it and they produce a third of the world's vehicles and are the biggest market for cars. Volvo will have only hybrid or full electric vehicles by 2020. BMW will have 12 full electric cars available by 2025.

Elon Musk will go down in history alongside Carl Benz and Henry Ford. He and Tesla have succeeded in changing the automobile industry in a major major way.


Can we put this post in a time capsule and see how much of it comes true in 2040?
I bet none of it does.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: strongt
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Lets see Seattle to Missoula Mt. non stop doing the legal speed limit lets see who gets there first.


At 475 miles even gas cars will need to stop for fuel. The tesla model s needs one 20min charge on a supercharger during the trip to make it. There are 4 supercharger locations spread throughout I-90 between Seattle & Missoula. It's funny the hate here about any new tech. As for charging stations check out the map:
Tesla Charging Map


Actually, I made that trip in July in my diesel pickup, but I didn't make Missoula. With a 35 gallon tank, 245 pounds of diesel fuel gives my truck 700+ miles of range at 75 mph. And I can refuel in 5 minutes, which is nearly faster than I can pee and get a Coke.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer

And like I said, there is a lot of time to go for this transition and to find the right mix, including nuclear. In the UK, wind power has already just become cheaper than nuclear thanks to economies of scale and improved know how.



Yes, it is much cheaper until you don't have any wind. Wind power in Ontario, based on our typical installs, would break-even at as little as $0.025/kWh. That's not a typo. Yet we subsidize them at an an average rate of $0.133/kWh, whilst we pay the nuke that produces 30% of our power $0.066/kWh, and they are locked into that rate for the next 30 years.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
The costs of alternative energy will keep on going down over time.


The problem isn't that alternative energy is necessarily expensive; as we've just discussed, wind is incredibly cheap. Solar on the other hand, due to it being limited by available daylight, is far less economical, the only thing it has going for it is low maintenance costs at this point. Density is horrific, lifespan is relatively short....etc. Average per kWh break-even for a solar setup in Ontario is $0.25/kWh in comparison. On average however, they are subsidized at $0.45/kWh.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
The cost of electricity will not rise. Innovation will continue to be a downward force.


It most assuredly will if the transportation sector is further electrified. It has to, to cover the costs currently being paid for through taxes levied on gas and diesel. See my earlier comment.


Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
I get what you are saying about the relative costs and the storage issues. I really do. But the movement to cleaner energy is happening and there is scope both in reducing the costs and there is an ability to absorb higher energy costs especially when the trade off is avoiding adverse health and climate outcomes. The doom and gloom may be valid as countries or states initially execute this poorly, but the bigger and longer term picture does not have to be bound by what you see now.


The present direction to dealing with storage issues is alternatives to storage, which has resulted in a surge in research and development of SMR nuclear reactors which can be deployed to compliment intermittent generation at half the cost per kWh of a typical nuclear install, and being modular in nature. That's exactly what Ontario is working on doing and will be deploying starting in 2025 when Pickering, our oldest NGS, begins its shutdown process.

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Can we put this post in a time capsule and see how much of it comes true in 2040?
I bet none of it does.


I'll bet none of it does either.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
So really, well done on calculating the costs of having a 100% solar powered country that will recharge all it's battery powered cars at midnight and for repeatedly identifying the peak electricity usage issues. I'm sure that all the people planning national grids never thought to consider such simple issues.


Here's how it panned out for Hawaii...

Like I said, middle of the night is far more expensive than mid-day...

 

[Shannow]

And here's what the smart people who operate the Ca grid are recommending.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plu...-grid-operator/

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
So to REPLACE 1,000MW of traditional power, you need 4,000MW of solar, or 3,000MW of wind...it's that simple...and then you need somewhere to stor it until it's used.

The lines "wind is cheaper than nuclear" are when wind is in the disruptive phase...yes, they put them in, and harvest the energy and revenue...and it's cheap.

But WHEN (not if) they have to replace traditional power, they can't be cheap. You HAVE TO install multiple times the nameplate rating of the technology ousted, and store the energy until needed.


Please read this article about wind power being cheaper than nuclear in the UK.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41220948

You will see that the pricing is in terms of megawatt hour and it appears that is the final cost after batteries.

I'm a big believer in nuclear power, and of course you can't overly rely on intermittent sources of energy, but as the article says, the cost of wind power has come down dramatically. This is the innovation aspect that I was referring to.

Now, when will anybody address and factor in the concept of externalities - the cost of adverse health outcomes and environmental damage into any of these calculations?

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Tesla has turned out to be a good bet. The gigafactory is forecast to generate $100bn for the Nevada economy over 2 decades.

They open sourced their technology a while ago. India wants to phase out petrol and diesel by 2030. UK and France by 2040. China is now looking at it and they produce a third of the world's vehicles and are the biggest market for cars. Volvo will have only hybrid or full electric vehicles by 2020. BMW will have 12 full electric cars available by 2025.

Elon Musk will go down in history alongside Carl Benz and Henry Ford. He and Tesla have succeeded in changing the automobile industry in a major major way.


Can we put this post in a time capsule and see how much of it comes true in 2040?
I bet none of it does.


Why not? Add VW and Mercedes plans to the capsule:

https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/mercedes-benz-will-electrify-its-entire-car-lineup-by-2022/

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41231766 - Volkswagen plans electric option for all models by 2030

And you won't need to wait until 2040 to see the Tesla gigafactories in production:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gigafactory_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Gigafactory_Europe

 

[CharlieBauer]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Yes, it is much cheaper until you don't have any wind. Wind power in Ontario, based on our typical installs, would break-even at as little as $0.025/kWh. That's not a typo. Yet we subsidize them at an an average rate of $0.133/kWh, whilst we pay the nuke that produces 30% of our power $0.066/kWh, and they are locked into that rate for the next 30 years.


See the bbc article on a success story with wind power.

The point here is that you can't take past examples of early attempts or poorly conceived clean energy projects and extrapolate them as what will be repeated over the next decades. Innovation and scale is a very powerful thing.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The problem isn't that alternative energy is necessarily expensive; as we've just discussed, wind is incredibly cheap. Solar on the other hand, due to it being limited by available daylight, is far less economical, the only thing it has going for it is low maintenance costs at this point. Density is horrific, lifespan is relatively short....etc. Average per kWh break-even for a solar setup in Ontario is $0.25/kWh in comparison. On average however, they are subsidized at $0.45/kWh.


As I may have said before, our price is $0.20 rising to $0.28 per kWh. If I spend over $60 a month, installing a solar system on my roof has a positive ROI. That's the situation now with today's technology.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
It most assuredly will if the transportation sector is further electrified. It has to, to cover the costs currently being paid for through taxes levied on gas and diesel. See my earlier comment.


Cost refers to the cost of producing electricity. You are referring to the end price paid by consumers. Sure, if you lose tax revenue from gasoline, then you need to get it back from someplace else. However, electric is half the price of gasoline per mile already in CA. Elsewhere in the world, that differential is going to be even bigger. There is a huge ability to bear higher electric prices for vehicle use.

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The present direction to dealing with storage issues is alternatives to storage, which has resulted in a surge in research and development of SMR nuclear reactors which can be deployed to compliment intermittent generation at half the cost per kWh of a typical nuclear install, and being modular in nature. That's exactly what Ontario is working on doing and will be deploying starting in 2025 when Pickering, our oldest NGS, begins its shutdown process.


Yes nuclear is the fastest way to a low carbon energy future.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Please read this article about wind power being cheaper than nuclear in the UK.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-41220948

You will see that the pricing is in terms of megawatt hour and it appears that is the final cost after batteries.


Now you are just making stuff up...the only mention of batteries is in the add in the sidebar how to make dead batteries work...but when you "learn to read the article that you are linking"...that's NOT batteries included...I don't know how it can "appear" that way...

It says that eh wind farms produce 36% of the time...just like I said, just like I modelled...and there's ZERO storage for the offshore wind farm...so to get the same amount of energy as the nuke, you have to put in THREE TIMES the number of wind turbines (capital times three), plus storage at $250/MWh round trip.

You are entitled to your opinions, not your own facts.

 

[4WD]

My understanding of the GigaFactory is that it has solar/wind/geothermal - not sure about the grid but if they don't say it is there - they burried cable after land acquisition (my conspiracy theory). They have some of the best battery technology in the world.
And now an affordable car - not this rich boy toy. A few years from now - show me the money - if this plan does not work I don't know how you plan bigger.
Micro/macro moment - in my small town region they have two interesting projects on the go:
1) a modular GTL plant at the wellhead (establish small scale viability of GTL)
2) CO2 sequestering at GTG plant that will feed an EOR flood of a large, but very old oilfield (stranded reserves).
These kind of projects get government support as well - so the competition for ideas and associated funding does not solely get directed to "green" energy - it attempts to make fossil fuel use greener ...