A Tesla out of warranty? OMG!

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: supton


Well to wheels analysis. I recall coming to similar conclusions, well after reading the analysis that I stumbled across, and ran a TDi for a number of years. Even tried to run B20 when I could. Want to say ethanol would give 1.6 units of energy back for every unit put in--but biodiesel was 3.2 units for every unit put in? something like that. Of course, BD seems to have fallen to the wayside, just like diesels.



A college friend and I did a project on bio-diesel for one of our classes. He had a Ford 7.3 PowerStroke that we ran on bio-diesel recycled and filtered from waste cooking oil. It was a dual tank setup so the vehicle started on regular diesel, switched over to bio when warmed up and then switched back to regular about a mile before shutdown. The truck ran great. He did a lot of research on the amount of energy units in bio-diesel vs. regular diesel fuel, and also how bio-diesel provided more lubricity over regular diesel.

The school also had one of their transit buses converted to waste cooking oil. It smelled like french fries when it drove by, which was pretty funny. Not sure what happened to it since they ended up replacing the whole bus fleet.

 

[Danno]

Originally Posted By: JeepWJ19


I am not claiming that producing electrical cars is not damaging to the environment, it's that when looking at thousands of years of data, our planet will increasingly get warmer if our CO2 levels get over 450ppm in the atmosphere. Geologists and other scientists are observing that we are experiencing more intense droughts which pose a threat to crops, animals and freshwater supplies.

Cars are only one point and cannot be the only focus.

Also, how do you address that we have already reached peak oil? We are consuming oil at a faster pace than it can regenerate. So ultimately we WILL run out, which we can't do much with an internal combustion engine if it doesn't have oil and gas.

Re: 450 PPM - show proof that that is the point of no return, looking at millions of years of data we have been significantly over that number and here we are cooler.
More intense droughts? again proof over millions of years please.
"Peak oil" is a farcical argument. We have all the oil we need for the foreseeable future.

 

[DBMaster]

I want to start by saying I am not anti-EV. One thing that rarely seems to be mentioned is the initial cost of installing a proper charger in your home. If you are in an apartment, you may as well forget it for now. If your car is not garaged, probably likewise. You won't get a satisfactory charging experience without spending the equivalent of a year's worth of gasoline (for me in my current Mazda3) to install a 220V circuit and purchase a charger. If you actually intend to use the vehicle for roads trips (at least in Texas) planning is required to make sure you have charging stations, and the time to use them, built into your trip.

Tesla's value, in the long run, will be pushing other manufacturers to build the truly affordable EVs. If enough buyers show interest the infrastructure will follow. Still, it will be some time before charging and EV can be accomplished in a comparable amount of time to pumping gas. I'll let those with the money and time be the early adopters. Widespread adoption of self-driving vehicles may be key in the adoption of EVs as lessening the amount of time spent sitting in traffic will increase the range of EVs.

It'll be interesting to see if the overall market modifies itself to widely accept electric cars.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: JeepWJ19
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp

Building an electric car is worse for our planet that building an ICE car and running it for a lifetime.

Exporting environmental damage to another country is not the same as solving an environmental issue.

It's a shell game. Nothing but a bunch of feel good bull.

As I've said before, the first time a man pointed an arrow at a man holding a gun, the fate of combustion vs. organic power was sealed. It was hundreds of years in the making by the time horse vs. car came around.

There has been no such demonstration of supremacy by the battery/electric system.


I am not claiming that producing electrical cars is not damaging to the environment, it's that when looking at thousands of years of data, our planet will increasingly get warmer if our CO2 levels get over 450ppm in the atmosphere. Geologists and other scientists are observing that we are experiencing more intense droughts which pose a threat to crops, animals and freshwater supplies.

Cars are only one point and cannot be the only focus.

Also, how do you address that we have already reached peak oil? We are consuming oil at a faster pace than it can regenerate. So ultimately we WILL run out, which we can't do much with an internal combustion engine if it doesn't have oil and gas............................................


Are you under the impression that lithium is even remotely as plentiful?

Or the materials to make those huge magnets?

Going battery electric isn't going to conserve anything. Just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

The mining and manufacturing of electric vehicle components is gross, wasteful, and dirty as anything.

I understand that you have been placed under the impression that because "nothing comes out of the tailpipe" that electric cars are environmental. But you were never told of the ultra horrible chemicals, gases, and strip mining procedures the third world uses to get to that point.

We need a solution for sure, but electric cars is just not it. It's just a very lazy way of congratulating ourselves for having achieved nothing.

We go electric, and we trade our Middle Eastern abusers for South American and Asian abusers. We trade our ICE CO2 for deforestation, geo-slaughter, and other greenhouse gases thousands of times worse.

You may as well just walk into a car dealership and take a $9000 discount in exchange for a 27.99% APR.

I used to play this game with my mother. I'd clean my room by bulldozing all of my toys into the closet. Didn't work on my mother, and won't work on Mother Earth either.

I'm open to a solution when I actually see one.

 

[JeepWJ19]

Originally Posted By: Danno

Re: 450 PPM - show proof that that is the point of no return, looking at millions of years of data we have been significantly over that number and here we are cooler.
More intense droughts? again proof over millions of years please.
"Peak oil" is a farcical argument. We have all the oil we need for the foreseeable future.


It's not a point of no return. It's the point at which things get worse.

Looking at million years of data? Yeah ok lets look into that. The sun was cooler millions of years ago, Earth was in a different phase of orbital cycles, and the continents were together which meant different ocean currents. We also cannot control the Earth's natural climate, but we DO add to the climate.

I don't know what you're looking at saying we are cooler... at least NASA disagrees:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disagrees with you


Yes more intense droughts. As temperatures continue to rise as has been projected for quite some time..... means a reduction of soil moisture which exacerbates heat waves.

Peak oil is not a farcical argument. It used to not be economically just to extract oil from tar sands, but here we are...... because we have used up 50% of our known oil reserves so either we go looking for more reserves (which who knows how easy they are to find) or we extract oil from less economically beneficial places (tar sands). No matter if you find it farcical or not, it's not that responsible to use the tired and trite argument "well we have enough for the forseeable future" even though we consume at a higher rate than what is being produced. That in itself is farcical.

 

[JeepWJ19]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp


Are you under the impression that lithium is even remotely as plentiful?

Or the materials to make those huge magnets?

Going battery electric isn't going to conserve anything. Just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

The mining and manufacturing of electric vehicle components is gross, wasteful, and dirty as anything.

I understand that you have been placed under the impression that because "nothing comes out of the tailpipe" that electric cars are environmental. But you were never told of the ultra horrible chemicals, gases, and strip mining procedures the third world uses to get to that point.

We need a solution for sure, but electric cars is just not it. It's just a very lazy way of congratulating ourselves for having achieved nothing.

We go electric, and we trade our Middle Eastern abusers for South American and Asian abusers. We trade our ICE CO2 for deforestation, geo-slaughter, and other greenhouse gases thousands of times worse.

You may as well just walk into a car dealership and take a $9000 discount in exchange for a 27.99% APR.

I used to play this game with my mother. I'd clean my room by bulldozing all of my toys into the closet. Didn't work on my mother, and won't work on Mother Earth either.

I'm open to a solution when I actually see one.


Nope.

Nope again.

So clearing whole mountain tops, having acidic mine waistage from coal is less wasteful? Or how about the chemical process in extracting oil from tar sands?

No I wasn't placed under that impression. I am under the impression that both mining processes are wasteful but one doesn't f-up the atmosphere and global temperatures. For such reasons I agree with you that they aren't THE solution but imo a better stepping stone in a direction that could help us achieve that SOLUTION if one exists (P vs NP maybe).

I'm always open to better solutions at well.

 

[maverickfhs]

It's really not my worry, I'll buy one, when it'll be available in a 'used' market and there'll be plenty of DIY videos. Until then, ciao

 

[DoubleWasp]

Originally Posted By: JeepWJ19
Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp


Are you under the impression that lithium is even remotely as plentiful?

Or the materials to make those huge magnets?

Going battery electric isn't going to conserve anything. Just borrowing from Peter to pay Paul.

The mining and manufacturing of electric vehicle components is gross, wasteful, and dirty as anything.

I understand that you have been placed under the impression that because "nothing comes out of the tailpipe" that electric cars are environmental. But you were never told of the ultra horrible chemicals, gases, and strip mining procedures the third world uses to get to that point.

We need a solution for sure, but electric cars is just not it. It's just a very lazy way of congratulating ourselves for having achieved nothing.

We go electric, and we trade our Middle Eastern abusers for South American and Asian abusers. We trade our ICE CO2 for deforestation, geo-slaughter, and other greenhouse gases thousands of times worse.

You may as well just walk into a car dealership and take a $9000 discount in exchange for a 27.99% APR.

I used to play this game with my mother. I'd clean my room by bulldozing all of my toys into the closet. Didn't work on my mother, and won't work on Mother Earth either.

I'm open to a solution when I actually see one.


Nope.

Nope again.

So clearing whole mountain tops, having acidic mine waistage from coal is less wasteful? Or how about the chemical process in extracting oil from tar sands?

No I wasn't placed under that impression. I am under the impression that both mining processes are wasteful but one doesn't f-up the atmosphere and global temperatures. For such reasons I agree with you that they aren't THE solution but imo a better stepping stone in a direction that could help us achieve that SOLUTION if one exists (P vs NP maybe).

I'm always open to better solutions at well.


Taking the energy used by automobiles and placing it in the electronic trial grid is not going to decrease demand for coal. It's only going to increase. So you're going to be killing more mountains for coal, and more mountains for lithium. Perfect.

Making electric cars is not a clean process by any means. Build for build, an electric car is about 70% dirtier to build in terms of greenhouse emissions.

From there forward, the operation of both has advantage to the electric car. But guess where all ost all of that 70% comes from? Making the battery. So now what happens when that car needs another battery? Boom. Just doubled those lifetime emissions, and the electric car has caught right back up to the ICE.

Like I said. Shell game.

Electric only beats ICE if the battery lasts forever. Every time that battery drops, it just gets worse.

But you can just buy another car rather than replace the battery you say? Another part of the scam.

I buy one ICE and ride it out, and another person buys multiple electrics. Who's doing more polluting?

But because the "savings" is only focused on one of those cars, it looks like electric is winning!

 

[Alfred_B]

Originally Posted By: DoubleWasp


I buy one ICE and ride it out, and another person buys multiple electrics.



The electric car just doesn't disappear into thin air when the original buyer trades it in for a new car.

 

[DoubleWasp]

Who said it does?

Whether it disappears or someone else buys it, the previous owner is checking the box for another round of pollution, while the still-running ICE is motoring on at its usual rate.

Better it did disappear into thin air, because the person buying the used electric buys a new battery, and makes his own impact contribution in the process.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
I completely understand the concerns of the people about electricity generation, infrastructure, etc.

However, the future will be different. The infrastructure and lifestyles will be different. But as experience has shown us, as a country we have become incapable of adapting to challenges, we simply prefer to live in denial.

What the future will look like. Pictured... A test section of world's first photovoltaic expressway opened to traffic Thursday in Jinan city, east China's Shandong Province.
It can generate 10 million kWh of electricity per year and melt ice and snow in winter with the thermal patches installed in the road.
The next plan is to release electricity to charge electric vehicles traveling above it.



10 million kWh sounds like a lot until you realize that is 0.01TWh, and China currently produces 4,100TWh with coal.

Wonder what the replacement schedule is going to look like when the panels die? Wonder how maintenance on dead cells and inverters is going to work?

PV seems to be the wet dream of some people

Not me.

 

[Alfred_B]

It's a 1 km test section of the road, a miniscule output compared to the rest of the country. Has 3 layers -- insulation, PhV layer and a transparent concrete layer.

Time will tell how the technology is able to perform. If it's reliable, imagine how much solar energy will be able to be captured.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
It's a 1 km test section of the road, a miniscule output compared to the rest of the country. Has 3 layers -- insulation, PhV layer and a transparent concrete layer.

Time will tell how the technology is able to perform. If it's reliable, imagine how much solar energy will be able to be captured.


Depends on whether it makes any economic sense ultimately. China has an obscene amount of coal to displace and PV needs to be coupled to storage to be useful 'round the clock. Storage requires mining, processing and even more costs, all of which increase with scale if your goal is to displace a baseload provider.

I'm far more excited about MSR SMR's, which are actually a viable alternative to fossil sources, and are reasonably compact and insanely dense with 5x the lifespan of PV and can actually do baseload.

 

[Shannow]

Solar roads are great, until you look at the availability of the surface to the sun...

Can only get 8 hours of charging on a solar system anyway, then throw cars over it, and you get less.

Solar means that not only does your EV need batteries, the grid needs batteries to store the energy for "later" when you want to use it.

Again...
Take 1,000MW thermal (coal, gas, nukes)...can make 24GWh in a day...delivered at exactly the time that you need it.
Replace that 1,000MW of thermal with solar, you need 4,000MW of solar (or more in Canada), plus 16+GHw of batteries to store and deliver it when you need it (on the average day).
Do it with wind, and it's 3,000MW nameplate of installed capacity and some huge amount of batteries because it's less predictable than sun.

Now the biggest battery yet built is another Musk story in south Australia...100MW, 120MWh (0.12GWh).

As to better mining not ruining the atmoshpere...here's one of the most biased Oz pundits...chosen exactly for that...
http://reneweconomy.com.au/comparing-the-carbon-footprint-of-energy-storage-technologies-21865/

Quote:
Barnhart crunched the numbers, the results were clear. “We determined that a pumped hydro facility has an ESOI value of 210,” he said. “That means it can store 210 times more energy over its lifetime than the amount of energy that was required to build it.”

The five battery technologies fared much worse. Lithium-ion batteries were the best performers, with an ESOI value of 10. Lead-acid batteries had an ESOI value of 2, the lowest in the study. “That means a conventional lead-acid battery can only store twice as much energy as was needed to build it,” Barnhart said. “So using the kind of lead-acid batteries available today to provide storage for the worldwide power grid is impractical.”


So the Tesla big battery uses 1/10th of it's utilitarian life in up front energy production costs...on top of the panels, on top of the massive concrete foundations (concrete is Huge CO2 impact) that will be there forever (CA didn't seem to be tearing down retired windmills).

As to the vehicular side of things...
Embedded GHG in automotive traction batteries

28KWh (tiny compared to Tesla, who aren't innovating, they're Panasonic 1860 batteries, just made cheap...just saying), has an embedded 3,000Kg of carbon...fair to say 9,000Kg for a Tesla all EV ???

9,000Kg...10Kg of CO2 per Gal combusted...900 gal's of gasoline equivalent before it gets off the start line...assuming that it's all GHG free electricity and storage from there (which it's not).

 

[Silverado12]

The best solution to the energy problem is to quit reproducing. But until then, I'll use my personal situation to address the bigger issue. It takes a lot of resources to make a car, and I saved one from the junkyard with minimal environmental damage (2 front fenders and a paintjob), but it uses a lot of gas by today's standards. My daily driver, a 2000 Mustang GT, probably has less environmental impact as a new Prius and Tesla, even though it uses a good bit of gas (20 mpg average). I try to save fuel by practically no idling and combining trips.

 

[DBMaster]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
Has 3 layers -- insulation, PhV layer and a transparent concrete layer.


That sounds like something Scotty made up!

 

[Garak]

Originally Posted By: Shannow
Can only get 8 hours of charging on a solar system anyway, then throw cars over it, and you get less.

Eight months of snow on it here couldn't be helpful either.

 

[Ducked]

Originally Posted By: Alfred_B
It's a 1 km test section of the road, a miniscule output compared to the rest of the country. Has 3 layers -- insulation, PhV layer and a transparent concrete layer.

Time will tell how the technology is able to perform. If it's reliable, imagine how much solar energy will be able to be captured.


I'm imagining a rather small number, but then I'd never heard of transparent concrete and couldn't see how it would work here, so I Googled.

Not very well, apparently.

"Several ways of producing translucent [NOTE: Not transparent, so this might not be the same stuff] concrete exist. All are based on a fine grain concrete (ca. 95%) and only 5% light conducting elements that are added during casting process."

"light transmission is generally a bit less than half the incident light on the fibers, so given five percent fibers, about two percent.."

Not looking good for power generation.

"An approach that does not use waveguides involves using transparent aggregate and binders." OK, that might be more practical (though its doubtful if its really "concrete") but even if they get it as transparent as glass (or use glass) how do they keep carbon black from tyres off it?

I suppose instead of snow ploughs they need relays of window-cleaning trucks?

 

[Alfred_B]

What it looks like up close

 

[SHOZ]

Originally Posted By: supton

Well to wheels analysis. I recall coming to similar conclusions, well after reading the analysis that I stumbled across, and ran a TDi for a number of years. Even tried to run B20 when I could. Want to say ethanol would give 1.6 units of energy back for every unit put in--but biodiesel was 3.2 units for every unit put in? something like that. Of course, BD seems to have fallen to the wayside, just like diesels.



Biodiesel is pretty big here in farmer country. 8% or 20% are the current blends. There is a local soybean processor that went 100% to BD instead of bottling cooking oil for the retail market.