Tesla Model S, Third Fire

[Rufus]

I used to do a lot of car racing when I was young, and almost to a man, the car guys have an intense, seething hatred for EV's.  I don't understand why, as for anyone who is a TRUE "car guy", an EV is a dream come true.

For a few minutes so they will be OK for drag racing. I don't hate EVs I just understand they are crap because batteries are crap and expensive.

[Corporate666]

That is because those studies are wrong and based on false assumptions like existing cars dating back over a decade and people buying inefficient cars. Who pays for them?

So every study that doesn't agree with your conclusions is wrong?  That's convenient!

And nonsensical.  The US Department of Energy has a simple calculator

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

which takes into account electrical production type and many other factors - you enter in your ZIP code and it does the calculations. All electric vehicles are the most efficient, period.  As electrical production becomes more efficient and greener, the numbers only swing further in favor of EV's.

You don't need a study or a Phd to see where and how an EV is less efficient. The average amount of CO2 produced per kWh for a country is easy to find using Google. The amount of CO2 a car produces is easely calculated by using the molecular weight of carbon and oxygen of the fuel and the mileage. In case of gasoline its 2392grams of CO2 per litre, in case of diesel its 2640 grams of CO2 per litre.

You've already proven your own argument wrong.  Gasoline doesn't magically get into the tank of a car for free with no emissions.  All that matters is true well-to-wheel comparisons, and those are heavily in favor of EV's.

With these numbers you don't have to be a math genius to work out whether your new car should be an EV or an efficient ICE based car if you want to drive green. And it turns out that in many cases a new efficient ICE based car is more efficient than a new EV (unless you are able to source enough electricity with an ultra low CO2 footprint which isn't 'washed green' by buying CO2 emission certificates).

I agree, in "many" cases, but those many cases are comparing particularly dirty electric production against particularly efficient cars.  Nobody argues that one particular oil-powered car can be "greener" than one particular electric in one particular location.  But that is as fair as comparison as my "Honda Civic is faster than Ferrari F458" (with the condition that both cars are driven on snow).

Ofcourse electricity production tends to get greener but so are cars. Over here the fuel prices and taxes on inefficient cars are insanely high so you'd be stupid to buy a very inefficient car if you drive a lot. The fuel costs alone would cut way to deep into your income (the same goes for large parts of Asia where people's income is low to begin with). Besides that the EU has put a CO2 quotum on car manufacturers limiting how much CO2 their cars may produce on average. So for every gas guzzler BMW sells they have to sell several very efficient cars to restore the balance. This limit gets lowered gradually over the next years to 95grams of CO2 per km in 2020 (that is a little over 6 years from now).

It is much easier to improve emissions on a small number of centralized power generators that require constant maintenance and monitoring than to improve emissions on millions of small power generators that are in various states of disrepair.  Easier to roll out new technologies too - and no one-time costs to the consumer either.  Not to mention it's much more efficient to produce anything on a large scale than a small scale - including motive power.

[Corporate666]

I don't think people are going to actively block EVs.  However, in the US there are two big issues with EVs that I'm not OK with.  First, I don't think buyers of $100k cars should be getting government handouts.  The Tesla is subsidized by several government programs.  Tesla the company would fold very quickly if they couldn't sell electric car credits and if DC didn't hand them nearly 10% of the purchase price of every car.  I'm not OK that I personally am helping pay for those cars. 

Can you elaborate on this?  I'm not aware that DC does hand money to Tesla for each unit purchases.  You're not talking about the tax credits for EV's are you?  If so, they don't work like that.

[Corporate666]

Comparing a poor IC vehicle with wishful thinking range of the 85kWh Tesla.

The EPA thinks the 60kWh Tesla is good for 208 miles and that there are many IC cars which will give 80 miles from 2 gallons so the efficiency gain is about 2.6 - in reality better because the Tesla has to lug an enormous battery around. At 3:1 that still leaves EVs with a 20:1 energy storage density problem to overcome.

Comparing a combustion car that gets 40mpg against a Tesla is an even more egregious case of wishful thinking.  The Tesla is on the same amenity field as something like a BMW 5 or 7 series.

Also, "in reality better because the Tesla has to lug an enormous battery around" makes no sense.  The efficiency is what it is in terms of power in and range.  The fact that the Tesla is heavy is already accounted for in it's range.

And finally, the can of gas needs refilled 6 or 7 times at $8 per time, while the Tesla needs refilled once, at a cost of zero (if you use the free charging stations), or $8 if you charge it only at home compared to about $45-50 for the combustion engine car.

[elgonzo]

There is. LFTR and TWR type reactors can happily burn through most of what is now considered waste, while at theh same time the end product will be radioactive for a far, far shorter time. But guess who lobbied massively to have spent fuel vitrified? Ah, yes, there it is: http://www.greens.org/s-r/35/35-08.html

Not to mention that those reactor types are pretty much inherently safe. Fact is that the spent fuel is already there. Let's make good use of it, while at the same time lessening the burden about the waste for the generations to follow.

LFTR and TWR are still in various stages of development. While those projects hold certain promises, it is still not certain if and when the numerous design challenges are being overcome and a feasible technology is being ready. Until this day happens, perhaps we could store the soon-to-become-fuel nuclear waste in your basement to keep it warm and dry? 

[Corporate666]

I used to do a lot of car racing when I was young, and almost to a man, the car guys have an intense, seething hatred for EV's.  I don't understand why, as for anyone who is a TRUE "car guy", an EV is a dream come true.

For a few minutes so they will be OK for drag racing. I don't hate EVs I just understand they are crap because batteries are crap and expensive.

Batteries are great.  You can fill them with any kind of electron you like - whether the electron came from nuclear, wind, solar, coal or anything else.  You can even make your own electrons from the sun.

There is massive amounts of $$ flowing into research.  It won't be long until the battery problem is solved and 300-400 miles of range and 15 minutes to "fill up" are the norm.  Then, not only do we get away from needlessly complex combustion engines, but all the other advantages of EV's will start to shine.  Reliability, comfort, ease of repair, etc.

[dr.diesel]

The Tesla is on the same amenity field as something like a BMW 5 or 7 series.

This is my only grip, for the most part.  If you have the cash to purchase a premium car of this class you don't need a $7500 government hand out, why should I pay so someone else can play?  (Granted I'm paying dozens of other ways that have no technological benefit, I know, I contest those as well)

I'd also like to know how many Tesla owners keep their SUVs.

[zapta]

Can you elaborate on this?  I'm not aware that DC does hand money to Tesla for each unit purchases.  You're not talking about the tax credits for EV's are you?  If so, they don't work like that.

The EV is subsidized in many ways, directly and indirectly. Here are few examples

1. Carbon tax. Competitors are forced to subsidize Tesla http://www.marketplace.org/topics/sustainability/teslas-secret-success-selling-emissions-credits

2. Tax credits to buyers. This is a subsidy by the rest of the tax payers.

3. HOV lane permit, estimated at $10K for the life time of the car.

4. Waiver of gas taxes (which are supposed to be used to maintain the road system).

Do a google search, you will find plenty of information. E.g. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/06/03/teslas-success-is-the-result-of-political-favoritism

Again, want to build or buy an EV, good for you, just do it on your own dime.

[elgonzo]

Gasoline doesn't magically get into the tank of a car for free with no emissions.  All that matters is true well-to-wheel comparisons, and those are heavily in favor of EV's.

Actually, not. It could be theoretically, yes. But reality stands against your argument: About 40% of worldwide electricity generation is by coal (black coal + lignite). Coal is a far worse CO2 emitter than oil. Also, most modern petrol vehicles today have means to clean the exhaust fumes (because they have to operate in densely populated areas), which - thanks to the stupid CO2 emission certificate trade - cannot be said in the same manner about (coal) power plants (which not necessarily have to be close to densely populated areas).

(Let's not start contemplating about the environmental impact of producing lithium batteries vs. the production of a plastics/rubber/metal petrol tank. On the other hand, an EV practically does away with the gear box (it just has a fixed transmission) and it does not require fuel to be transported to gas stations, which would offset the environmental costs somewhat.)

[G7PSK]

Battery power has a long way to go before it can replace oil power for vehicles, the tesla is a start but that is all it is a start and a rich mans toy to boot.
I have nothing against electric power I just don't like the hype and the taxes used to support the hype.
I do not know if NOAA have falsified anything but it certainly looks like the UAE has been falsifying things in order to continue to get research grants.
When battery power can do this I will be impressed, the drive here by the way is electric but the power comes from two V16 diesels each rated at 2300 HP.

[zapta]

Not so sure we should be taking anyone seriously that is implying that NOAA and NASA are 'tampering' with data to mislead everyone.

NASA admits of changing the raw data, they call it 'adjustment':

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates_v3/

Remember, NOAA and NASA are government agencies and their administrators or appointed by politicians, just like the NSA.

[mamalala]

LFTR and TWR are still in various stages of development. While those projects hold certain promises, it is still not certain if and when the numerous design challenges are being overcome and a feasible technology is being ready. Until this day happens, perhaps we could store the soon-to-become-fuel nuclear waste in your basement to keep it warm and dry? 

At least for the LFTR, the challanges are pretty much only ones of scaling it up. After all, there already have been two working ones, one in the mid 50's and one in the mid 60's. Some folks are working on that right now already. TWR is also worked on, and with some real backing (read: money) behind it, through TerraPower. But that doesn't change the fact that some hysteria-prone folks with influence are working hard to get the current waste into a state that makes it unusable. So anytime i hear someone whine about the problem of storage of that waste for many, many thousands of years, i just like to point the finger back and tell them "well, why then working so hard to make sure it stays waste, instead of working on something to use it instead?"

EV's are the future, but they need electricity. Going all solar and wind only is not an option, when it comes to a large scale. Energy supply has to work regardless of weather conditions. Augmenting solar and wind with storage is also limited in capacity. Plus, the problem of NIMBY's. There has to be something that delivers energy when no sun shines, no wind blows and storage is drained. Coal, oil and gas are just too limited to be a long term solution for that.

Once we get a dense net of charging stations and places to swap the batteries for those who can't or don't want to wait, EV's will definitely kick off. Plus, if more manufacturers are to produce EV's, they better agree on a few standardized battery packs. Every manufacturer having it's own pack will only result in a big mess, in the long run. And i see no obstacles to make that happen, after all we got a similar system set up and running successfully already: gas stations. They too need to store the fuel, need constant delivery of new fuel, can do some servicing, etc.

Tesla is on the right track, especially since they include charging stations and power generation for them. But so far it only works because it is done on a rather miniscule scale with only a few cars (compared to ICE powered cars, gas stations, and all the infrastructure and industry behind that). If they would become extremely popular overnight and start to churn out big numbers of cars, while not keeping up with building new charging stations and power generation facilities, it will break down.

Greetings,

Chris

[nctnico]

That is because those studies are wrong and based on false assumptions like existing cars dating back over a decade and people buying inefficient cars. Who pays for them?

So every study that doesn't agree with your conclusions is wrong?  That's convenient!

And nonsensical.  The US Department of Energy has a simple calculator

http://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

which takes into account electrical production type and many other factors - you enter in your ZIP code and it does the calculations. All electric vehicles are the most efficient, period.  As electrical production becomes more efficient and greener, the numbers only swing further in favor of EV's.

Its a perfect example of how the government puts ideas into gullible minds. Comparing current cars on the road to new electric cars is comparing apples and oranges. It underlines my point perfectly. Dare them to compare new efficient ICE cars to EVs and you'll get an entirely different picture like I already proved mathematically over and over again. Even better, ask them why bio-fuel isn't mentioned at all.

edit: if you scroll down you see a list of CO2 emissions per type of car. If I plug in the numbers of my own 14 year old car (a compact sedan) then I get to 56lb of CO2 for a 100mile trip including 12% well-to-gas station losses.

It is much easier to improve emissions on a small number of centralized power generators that require constant maintenance and monitoring than to improve emissions on millions of small power generators that are in various states of disrepair.  Easier to roll out new technologies too - and no one-time costs to the consumer either.  Not to mention it's much more efficient to produce anything on a large scale than a small scale - including motive power.

That is easely solved with mandatory annual vehicle emission testing. Over here the emissions limits of cars are very strict and tested at regular intervals (depending on the age of the car).  Besides that cars have a much shorter life cycle than power plants so stricter emission limits have an effect quickly. Upgrading a power plant means tearing it down prematurely and rebuilding it. Do you want to see your electricity bill doubled or tripled?

A coal or gas based power plant really isn't that much more efficient than an efficient ICE because both need to burn fossil fuel and convert heat into motion. Again, the CO2 emissions give you a clear answer on how bad the efficiency is and when it makes sense to buy an EV or when its better to buy an efficient ICE based car.

[elgonzo]

There is massive amounts of $$ flowing into research.  It won't be long until the battery problem is solved and 300-400 miles of range and 15 minutes to "fill up" are the norm.  Then, not only do we get away from needlessly complex combustion engines, but all the other advantages of EV's will start to shine.  Reliability, comfort, ease of repair, etc.

Let's hope there will be a new battery technology in the foreseeable the future. While i don't understand much of the physics and the research about battery tech, i can still vividly remember times where no Lithium-ion batteries existed (merely 25 years ago). So, my (unjustified) hope is that we can see another breakthrough in the next 25 years...

Then we still need to get rid of those many coal power plants, though. That seems to be a much more difficult endeavor than developing new batteries.

[woodchips]

This is a long thread, but not much in the way of electronics engineering. Can I ask some questions, searching for electric cars produces lots of hits and no information.

The Tesla uses something like 8000 cells in it battery? I assume that the voltage is about 300V so again that means about 100 cells in series. If so, then how on earth does the battery cope with a dud cell in these series chains? Many years ago I did reliability calculations, and batteries were not very good. So in these 8000 cells one cell is going to die every week or so. One dud cell will cause increased stress to the other series cells during both charge and discharge?

The battery is, say, 100kWh, so to charge in 1 hour means 400A at 240V. Most of the power distribution is 400V 3 phase, not certain of the current capacity but just how many super charging stations can one feeder transformer cope with? These currents need cables like fire hoses, but the photos I have seen of the lady using the charging station has her holding something that would run an electric kettle?

The ability to swap the battery in minutes is being sold as a benefit. But every car has a different battery. Just how many of these, at £10,000+ a go, will the average swap station have on their shelf? I rather suspect the number to be none.

And how many of these cars will still have their battery when they are being stolen as backup power for wind turbines etc? How easy do you think it will be to insure your £10,000 battery against theft? Impossible is probably the most accurate answer. As EVs become more common then they will be 'recycled' by the criminal fraternity. About 30 years ago the 12V battery was the target for theft, not now.

I think that EVs are the future, but why isn't there a simple one to buy? No aircon, no ABS, no electric windows, seats, mirrors and everything else? I just want to go from A to B in a comfortable and warm car, a 70mph maximum speed is adequate but a 100 mile range is essential. And it mustn't cost much more than a similar ICE vehicle.

[mtdoc]

For an excellent fact based discussion of possible sources for electricity production see THIS post by the UCSD physicist Tom Murphy's at his excellent Do The Math blog

[tom66]

Can you elaborate on this?  I'm not aware that DC does hand money to Tesla for each unit purchases.  You're not talking about the tax credits for EV's are you?  If so, they don't work like that.

The EV is subsidized in many ways, directly and indirectly. Here are few examples (...)

But so are gas vehicles, just less obviously:-
 * Wars and diplomatic missions to other countries to secure oil.
 * Clean up and disposal of leaked oil, which is not always completed by the oil company or significantly delayed.
 * Smog/pollution causing health problems in large cities, groundwater pollution etc.
 * Future environmental damage: global warming, etc.

[JoeyP]

I used to do a lot of car racing when I was young, and almost to a man, the car guys have an intense, seething hatred for EV's.  I don't understand why, as for anyone who is a TRUE "car guy", an EV is a dream come true.

Lower weight, putting the power where it's needed (wheel based motors), and huge advantages in center of gravity, packaging and such will make for cars that vastly outperform cars of today.  Not to mention all the torque right off the line.  It ought to be a car guy's fantasy.  But they complain about it.  Because most people don't like change.

These are exactly the reasons that I DO want one, but not the model S - it's not fast enough to beat the fossil-burning roadster I currently drive (not even their "Performance" model, and believe me they've tested me with em). But their discontinued roadster had truly impressive performance which rivaled many "super-cars" costing hundreds of thousands more.

I considered buying one of their roadsters when they were in production, but they wanted to charge a $10K premium because the area I live in didn't have a service center at the time. That told me two things: 1. they expect to have problems (and they do: http://www.businessinsider.com/george-clooney-wasnt-impressed-with-tesla-2013-11), 2. They didn't mind insulting potential customers. I passed. Give em a generation or two first.

I'm hoping their fully native design roadster (not yet introduced) will have similar or maybe even better performance. I'd love to trade my fossil-burner for one of those, but not due to any misguided belief about them helping the environment. I just want the performance (Fuck yeah)!

[free_electron]

This is a long thread, but not much in the way of electronics engineering. Can I ask some questions, searching for electric cars produces lots of hits and no information.

The Tesla uses something like 8000 cells in it battery? I assume that the voltage is about 300V so again that means about 100 cells in series.

Wrong

The Tesla battery is a unique design. There are slightly over 6700 individual cells in the pack. They are grouped in 16 clusters.
Each cluster has a battery controller. From what i heard and read in the patents they can actually control individual cells. Not only monitor them , but shunt them.
So if an individual cell dies they simply short it out so it does not become  resistive load. the total chain voltage goes down but the inverter drving the motor can compensate for that.

[elgonzo]

At least for the LFTR, the challanges are pretty much only ones of scaling it up. After all, there already have been two working ones, one in the mid 50's and one in the mid 60's. Some folks are working on that right now already. TWR is also worked on, and with some real backing (read: money) behind it, through TerraPower.

Several countries built or build experimental LFTR reactors and small-scale pilots (note, China is one of them). But this does not mean that the technology is ready for proper extensive operation, yet. All the while nuclear waste is a present occurrence. What are you suggesting to do with the nuclear waste we have right here and now? Storing it until LFTR reactors in either significant numbers or significant size become a reality, and in whose neighborhood? If you know a country that would love to take the nuclear waste into storage, speak up. I think those hysteria-prone folks would listen eagerly...

EV's are the future, but they need electricity. Going all solar and wind only is not an option, when it comes to a large scale. Energy supply has to work regardless of weather conditions. Augmenting solar and wind with storage is also limited in capacity. Plus, the problem of NIMBY's. There has to be something that delivers energy when no sun shines, no wind blows and storage is drained. Coal, oil and gas are just too limited to be a long term solution for that.

Absolutely. I fully agree with you.

Once we get a dense net of charging stations and places to swap the batteries for those who can't or don't want to wait, EV's will definitely kick off. Plus, if more manufacturers are to produce EV's, they better agree on a few standardized battery packs. Every manufacturer having it's own pack will only result in a big mess, in the long run. And i see no obstacles to make that happen, after all we got a similar system set up and running successfully already: gas stations. They too need to store the fuel, need constant delivery of new fuel, can do some servicing, etc.

There will be no obstacles, i hope. There will be perhaps regional issues that have to be sorted out, especially with electricity suppliers (how to do billing for the charges), but that's not much of a technology or infrastructure issue...

Tesla is on the right track, especially since they include charging stations and power generation for them. But so far it only works because it is done on a rather miniscule scale with only a few cars (compared to ICE powered cars, gas stations, and all the infrastructure and industry behind that). If they would become extremely popular overnight and start to churn out big numbers of cars, while not keeping up with building new charging stations and power generation facilities, it will break down.

Tesla has a number of partnerships with 'traditional' car makers, for whom i can't help myself believing Tesla is kind of a test bunny. (One of the reasons why Tesla can do what it does seemingly on its own is because "Tesla" is a relatively "up market" brand. Car makers don't yet want to expose their own "up market" brands too much in what is perceived as an unproven market.) Tesla wouldn't go mass-market on their own, as they don't have the capacities and the global logistics of such scale.

If EV's become a general drop-in replacement for petrol cars on a large scale (in every aspect, including manufacturing costs), car makers will churn out EVs. With the exception of the electric traction, that's what car makers already do globally for decades. An EV is still an automobile and is manufactured mostly like a petrol car. Certification procedures for EVs around the world would not be much different from those for petrol cars. If EVs become standard car technology, marketing will be very much the same as of now in selling a car to people who don't need one (yes, i speak about city folks )

[zapta]

I'm hoping their fully native design roadster (not yet introduced) will have similar or maybe even better performance. I'd love to trade my fossil-burner for one of those, but not due to any misguided belief about them helping the environment. I just want the performance (Fuck yeah)!

They still sell used ones. Naturally they have low mileage ;-)

http://www.teslamotors.com/preowned

[JoeyP]

I'm hoping their fully native design roadster (not yet introduced) will have similar or maybe even better performance. I'd love to trade my fossil-burner for one of those, but not due to any misguided belief about them helping the environment. I just want the performance (Fuck yeah)!

They still sell used ones. Naturally they have low mileage ;-)

http://www.teslamotors.com/preowned

I passed when they were new, with fresh new battery packs - and that's before I knew they were going to be such a limited production run (2500 total). I sure as hell don't want one that's been driven to death by someone else. I think a used EV has to be one of the worst possible investments at this stage of the game. I'll let em get it right first. Besides, just bought my current vehicle earlier this year

[Rufus]

There is massive amounts of $$ flowing into research.  It won't be long until the battery problem is solved and 300-400 miles of range and 15 minutes to "fill up" are the norm.

Another one that thinks wishful thinking can trump physics and chemistry.

[staxquad]

there's no solving nuclear waste, human incompetence, hubris and stupidity

There is. LFTR and TWR type reactors can happily burn through most of what is now considered waste, while at the same time the end product will be radioactive for a far, far shorter time. But guess who lobbied massively to have spent fuel vitrified? Ah, yes, there it is: http://www.greens.org/s-r/35/35-08.html

Not to mention that those reactor types are pretty much inherently safe. Fact is that the spent fuel is already there. Let's make good use of it, while at the same time lessening the burden about the waste for the generations to follow.

Greetings,

Chris

LFTR and TWR type reactors do not exist and are not feasible.  Your point is moot.

All spent nuclear fuel rods at all nuclear plants around the World are still on site, they don't know what to do with it, no state wants to store the waste. 

Nuclear disasters have not been cleaned up, will still contaminate the environment centuries later.

Chernobyl is still a dead zone, still contaminating, still requiring human intervention, still costing.  Fukushima's legacy is still developing.  Deaths are greater than the Nuclear Industry wants to admit, including Three Mile Island.  (~1 million, thousands, hundreds, and future deaths)

Without subsidies to build and liabilities supported by the public, nuclear plants would never be built, are uneconomic, period.

More nuclear disasters will occur, and more frequently, due to aging nuclear plants still in use causing more environmental contamination that will affect life on earth for thousands of years.

Certain high level liquid nuclear wastes can be vitrified, not spent fuel rods.    Go ahead and dump spent nuclear fuel rods into an induction heated furnace, see what happens 

Half life of plutonium is 24,400 years, needing over 500,000 years (20 half lives) to be diminished.  It's serious toxic corrosive radioactive man made stuff that should not be created in the first place.   

Radiation is real, not imaginary, not to be taken lightly.  I don't buy food originating from Europe, it's too contaminated.   (cesium takes 600 years to be gone, not decades)  : Surface ground deposition of caesium-137 released in Europe after the Chernobyl accident

Electricity generated from nuclear plants used by EVs is not clean and not cheap.  EVs are not volks wagons, they are second cars for the well to do.  The majority of people can't afford them, they are impractical and being subsidized to offset their true cost. 

edit regarding food originating from Europe

An Assessment of Radiocaesium Activity Concentrations in Sheep in Restricted Areas of England and Wales

Sheep farms under curbs see no end to Chernobyl fallout
· More than 400 still face safety measures
· Tests on sheep show high caesium levels persist


cesium has a 30 year half life, so no surprise, it will persist for centuries

ex. Swiss cheese and chocolate bars, Polish dill pickles, Turkish figs
but also all food from Japan, all sea food, Hershey chocolate bars from Pennsylvania

[nctnico]

What color is your tin foil hat today? You do know your neighbours to the south (and a little bit north) tested nuclear weapons inside their own country?

But it seems you are wrong anyway. Most of the radiation is from natural sources and has been there for millions of years:
http://www.medicalradiation.com/wp-content/uploads/kreisdiagramm_gross.jpg?a17713

It is strongly advised to ventilate the crawl space under your home (or basement) properly to prevent radon gas from building up.