Tesla Model S, Third Fire

[Corporate666]

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.

You didn't read the site.

They do take biofuels into account.  Their model for car emissions uses the GREET model (http://greet.es.anl.gov/) which (from their site) "GREET includes more than 100 fuel pathways including petroleum fuels, natural gas fuels, biofuels...".  Furthermore, the average efficiency of vehicles on the roadways has not significantly improved in the past 20 years, and the average age of vehicles here is 11 years old.  So the argument that new cars are producing drastically less CO2 is just not true. 

The simple fact is that EV's pollute a lot less in general, with the only exceptions being extremely efficient combustion cars, which are not comparable in amenities and trim level to the EV's you compare them against, or specific areas that have high emissions for electricity production, which is a small minority of the whole, and which also is a trend that is changing drastically in favor of EV's.

You can download the car fuel data right from the relevant UK gov't site

http://carfueldata.dft.gov.uk/downloads/download.aspx?rg=aug2013

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.

56lb = 25.4kg, or 25,400grams
100 miles = 160km
25400g/160km = 158.75g/km
If 12% of that is well-station, that's about 140g/km.

According to this site (http://www.electricityinfo.org/carboncalculator.php)

In the UK, the average is 1551kg of CO2 for 3300kWh of electricity.  The Chevrolet Volt will consume 13kW to charge, and give a 64km range from that.  So if you are in the UK, that would be 6.11kg of CO2.  Or 95g/km.  So you are polluting 67% more than a guy in the UK driving a Volt.

In California, average emissions is 1047kg for the same 3300kWh, or 64.5g/km.  In the whole USA, the average is 2040kg/3300kWh, 8kg of CO2 per charge, or 126g/km.

EV's pollute less. A lot less.  Look at the UK gov't data I posted a link to.  The most efficient combustion car listed is the Renault Clio dCi 90 ECO.  Hardly comparable to the cars above it on the list, like the Volt.  There are also more efficient EV's than the Volt, like the Smart EV which is 17% more efficient than the Volt.

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?

"Easily solved" must be a euphimism for "hugely complicated, expensive and burdensome".  Are you really suggesting that it's easier to implement, monitor, test and legislate emissions testing for tens or hundreds of millions of individual vehicles owned by private citizens compared to doing the same for a few dozen heavily regulated power stations?  Nonsense.  And you don't need to tear down a power plant to improve emissions.  They are constantly being updated and upgraded already.  And what do you think is more expensive... several tens of millions of cars at a few tens of thousands of $$ each, or several tens of power plants?  It's not even close to being close.

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.

Nonsense.  Coal or gas power plants are MUCH more efficient than a combustion engine.  At this point, you're just making stuff up. 

[Corporate666]

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).

I figured that is what you were talking about.  These items above are most definitely not subsidies.

People often talk about the money "given" to the car manufacturer by the government.  That's nonsense.  No money changes hands, and it's incorrect to assume that an EV buyer would necessarily otherwise have paid that money in taxes.  Not to mention that not everyone gets the tax credit, and the logical fallacy of a tax cut being analogous to a payment. 

Calling a HOV lane permit a subsidy by the rest of the public is amusing, at best

And as for the waiver of gas taxes, there is no such thing.  EV drivers are no more being subsidized than bicycle rider. 

I find it funny that everyone (not talking about you specifically, just this whole argument) seems to think they have an inherent right to the money in someone else's pocket.  It reminds me of when people complain that as a business, they are subsidizing me because I use the roads more (delivery trucks, etc) than they do.  It seems to me that it's a basic human trait to be selfish and want to horde everything for themselves, and to be angry when they perceive someone else getting something they are not.

I'm not a hypocrite about it though - because I also don't get angry that I subsidize peoples mortgages because they can deduct the interest, or that I subsidize others' children because I pay property taxes, or that I subsidize the taxes of everyone I pay more than.

If people want to talk about taxation fairness, I'm all for it. Let's take the total government expense, divide it by the # of people living in this country (let's say everyone over 18), and send each person a bill.

I would be absolutely thrilled by that.  I wager most of the people complaining about others getting something while "they" pay for it won't be though

[Corporate666]

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.)

The data is out there and it shows that EV's create drastically less emissions than combustion cars. 

And the current trends are heavily favoring EV's (cleaner energy) - so the gap that EV's have over ICE cars is widening, not shrinking.

[Corporate666]

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.

You keep making these types of comments and meanwhile the people posting numbers on this thread have proven you wrong again and again.

At some point, you have to accept that you're speaking from unwarranted bitterness, for whatever reason.  But all the bitterness in the world isn't stopping the R&D that is happening every day in battery technology.  You can claim it's wishful thinking all you like - while you have a cell phone powered by a Li-Ion battery, which replaced the NiMH batteries, which replaced the NiCD batteries, etc, etc. 

[staxquad]

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.

Ad hominem, red herring and straw man
 

[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.

You keep making these types of comments and meanwhile the people posting numbers on this thread have proven you wrong again and again.

The DOE has been spending around $2 billion a year on hydrogen and fuel cell research for the last decade..

http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/budget.html

$20 billion and 10 years later did they come up with a useful hydrogen fuel cell - no. If something is not possible it doesn't matter how much you want it or how much you spend it remains not possible.

I don't know if the future holds some technological battery breakthrough and neither do you or anyone else. I am not dumb enough to think we should plan and invest in energy generation, transport and infrastructure based on the assumption that it does.

[zapta]

...I don't buy food originating from Europe, it's too contaminated. ...

Wow!

[G7PSK]

I thought that you might like to know what it's like to ride in an electric vehicle so here is a video, enjoy the ride.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=pPDHX-aI8mw

[nctnico]

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?

"Easily solved" must be a euphimism for "hugely complicated, expensive and burdensome".  Are you really suggesting that it's easier to implement, monitor, test and legislate emissions testing for tens or hundreds of millions of individual vehicles owned by private citizens

That is exactly how they do that over here and in many other countries as well. So yes, it can be done and it does help to keep cars stay as clean as when they left the factory.

BTW the Volt needs 225Wh per km so per your examples it produces 116grams of CO2 per km in the UK and 139 grams per km in the US (average). Ofcourse my 14 year old car is less efficient. Its ICE technology from the 90's! I could cheat though and put 100% bio-diesel in my car lowering its CO2 output to 50 grams per km. All it takes for me is to get in my car and drive to a gas station selling bio-diesell about 5km from my home (its just not along the routes I normally drive).

If you look at comparable cars to the Volt you could look at a VW Golf or Renault Megane with a diesel engine. The CO2 emission of those is in the ballpark of 113 grams per km and their engines are more powerful than the engine in my current car.

And perhaps coal/gas power plants are more efficient by themselves there is still a large amount of losses. From the plant to the wheel you have transport, conversion, battery, conversion and motor losses: 0.92 * 0.95 * 0.90 * 0.90 (Prius drive train data) * 0.95 = 0.68. So that is 32% loss between the power station and the wheels. If the power plant has a remarkable efficiency of 60% then the overall efficiency is still only 41%. The problem with electricity is that it needs to be transported and converted several times. While each 'link' is efficient in itself (and thus hard to improve!) the whole chain is not very efficient.

[nctnico]

Petrol cars use more electricity per mile than electric cars so. I can't remember the exact figure now, it was something like 7KW/h per gallon of petrol refined.

That is comparing apples and oranges. The resulting CO2 emissions are the only proper way to compare the fuel efficiency of the whole chain.

[Rufus]

Tesla's Superchargers are 100% solar powered, including the ones being built in the UK.

So they only work during the day then?

Hard to believe on a supposedly technical forum anyone is dumb enough to regurgitate that crap.

[elgonzo]

The data is out there and it shows that EV's create drastically less emissions than combustion cars. 

The data is out there. Enjoy.

And the current trends are heavily favoring EV's (cleaner energy)...

Don't know about the clean energy trends you follow. Germany's green energy initiative for example has become a synonym for disaster (Spiegel(en) article, Forbes article). Don't know about other countries, though...

[Rufus]

So they only work during the day then?

Hard to believe on a supposedly technical forum anyone is dumb enough to regurgitate that crap.

No, they invented these amazing devices called "batteries" that can store electricity! There is also this massive nation wide grid they can interact with, selling excess power to and using as a backup when required. They produce more than they use.

Hard to believe on a supposedly technical forum anyone is dumb enough not to know the basics of renewable energy.

Batteries cost more than the grid electricity they can charge and discharge in their lifetime. No one sensibly uses batteries to time shift solar energy when a grid supply is available. If it were practical and economic electricity generators would use batteries to store energy from their excess generating capacity during the night instead of having to sell it off cheap to increase demand.

The grid is a distribution system not a storage system. Pumping intermittent solar into the grid causes conventional capacity to shut down or run less efficiently. Conventional capacity generates less for the same overhead which overall increases the price of generation, solar generators get actually get paid a premium for doing this instead of having to pay the costs. 

Claiming something is 100% solar powered because you are allowed to abuse the grid at other's expense is pure bullshit. The 100% is likely bullshit anyway  - try working out the area of solar panels required to power a single 120kW supercharger for say 8 hours a day - even if you are allowed to abuse the grid and average over a year.

Insolation in the UK is about 2.9kWh per day per m^2. A generous 15% conversion efficiency means 0.435kWh of electricity per day per m^2. A supercharger at 120kW for 8 hours a day needs 960kWh, or 2,200 m^2 of solar panels. Is each supercharger going to have a solar panel covered roof large enough to park 180 Teslas underneath? No, look at the pathetically inadequate size of the solar panels here

http://www.teslamotors.com/supercharger

which will make that supercharger 2 or 3% solar powered. 

[elgonzo]

LOL, newspapers trying to sell a few copies. Germany's transition has been a huge success and is far from complete yet. They are well on target and re-nationalizing their energy production.

Sure, for some it is a huge success. It is also a success for cheap and dirty coal power plants...

[G7PSK]

While we are buying all these photovoltaic panels and lithium batteries from the Chinese what are they doing in order to keep up with demand. Building coal fired generating plant as fast as they can, I have read that its one every 3 weeks but that may well be wrong.

[Phaedrus]

Insolation in the UK

Well there's your problem. You live in a country that only sees the sun about twice a year!

Works better in sunny California/Nevada/Arizona/New Mexico/Texas/etc.

[kaz911]

Just to add some gas to the fuel here...

1. Looking at CO2 dating back to early 1900 to now - and comparing it to burning of fossil fuel - does not show expected dips where they are supposed to be. Energy crises in the 70's and 80's had very limited impact if any at all on CO2. But if you look at the CO2 graphs the only times where CO2 has dropped - was during big wars. That in itself is strange because we never manufacture more or use more fossil fuels than during a war. WW2 saw the biggest decline in CO2 as far I I can calculate. CO2 curves kind of fits well with population growth though...

2. Battery technology has not evolved very much in the past 100 years.  There has been zero "milestone" improvements in 30 years - just slight increases in capacity and charge-ability.  Your mobile phone battery has not become a lot better fast - but low power electronics has come far in lower power consumption.  But a battery "revolution" would be nice. There is a lot of "promising" research results announced all the time - but so far none of them seem to get to the commercial (usable) stage.

3. Fossil fuels are sourced from many places. But many rare earth components for a lot of battery types - are mostly only mined in China who has more than monopoly on those rare earth minerals. So to drive your EV in the future - all your "fuel" storage mediums must be sourced from China.

4. Tesla superchargers are NOT 100% powered by solar power. Select stations will have solar panels to offset part of the charge. The best solar panels today deliver about 200 watt pr. square meter at the best time of the day. The newest Tesla supercharger delivers 120 kW pr car to charge a 85 kW car battery to 50% charge in 20 minutes.  So to generate 120,000 watt - you would (without any loses and inefficiencies) - need at LEAST 120.000 watt / 200 watt pr panel m2 = 600 m2 (6500 square feet) of solar panels - and that is for EACH car needing charge. And to realistic make certain you can charge with 120 kW you would need 150-180 kW of solar panels in sunshine states.

5. Any electricity grid in the world right now - is NOT ready for millions of consumers suddenly plugging in their cars to charge the 60-85 kW batteries overnight. The amount of money and resources needed to expand the grid to cater for even 10% EV cars on the road is staggering.

Don't get me wrong - I like renewable energy. Where I am from a lot of the energy is from renewable sources. But pure EV is still not in the books for me. I could consider a hybrid though since I don't have to sit around for 40 minutes to fill its tank to 80%.

[free_electron]

Just to add some gas to the fuel here...

easy for you to say, you're from the emirates 
last time i checked gas was free there ...

[kaz911]

Just to add some gas to the fuel here...

easy for you to say, you're from the emirates 
last time i checked gas was free there ...

haha nope original from Denmark. And gas has never been free here [in the uae]  - just cheap *G* Current price is AED 1.72 pr litre = about $1.77 per gallon

[zapta]

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.

Let's see...

1. This is a common myth, oil supply requires wars. China gets oil supply and is not involved in wars. It's not about oil, it's about values and the US wars were not always in oil rich areas.

2. Well, if a company has a spill, it should pay to clean it up. That's basic.

3. Life expectancy grew in the last 40-50 years. Check the stats.

4. There are a lot of exaggerations here and many claims has been retracted, while other got span (the climate changed 'paused').  Check this senate testemony http://capitolrecord.tvw.org/2013/03/senators-hear-testimony-from-global-warming-skeptic/#.UhrFqWR4Z05  There are other scientists with similar views despite what the environmental lobbyists say. I can provide you more links.

This about it this way, ICE technology is used to deliver the Teslas to the customers or to tow it when it runs out of power (I saw one myself, it was ironic, a Tesla S on a two track, a new meaning to zero emission).

EV technology is promising, exciting, and should be pursued but not on other people' dime. I fly RC models with electric motors but I don't expect anybody to pay for it.

[SgtRock]

Dear Zapta:

--You make some very good points. Rather than rational debate the AGW folks often  prefer to dehumanize and insult those who disagree with even the smallest portion of their dogmatic assertions. Thus, they compare them to Holocaust Deniers, Tobacco Scientists, Flat Earthers, and the willfully ignorant, all of which I regard as a concession of the weakness of their arguments.

--In the Climategate scandal,emails proved that they were even plotting to prevent scientific journals from publishing peer reviewed papers by qualified scientists who disagreed on any point, no matter how small. It has even been advocated that any Meteorologist who quibbles should have his credentials pulled and denied further employment. Clearly there is a Stalinist tinge here. Case in point, see link below for a video of, and quotes from a Piers Morgan interview with Dr. Roy Spencer, former NASA climatologist, and independent reporter Mark Hertsgaard, who only interviews "Affirmers"

“I don't think we should talk to climate deniers about climate stories. It is journalistically irresponsible.”

 http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/journalist-lectures-piers-morgan-giving-air-time-climate-denier

"He was born ignorant, and has been losing ground ever since."
Fred Allen 1894 - 1956

Best Regards
Clear Ether

[SgtRock]

Greetings EEVBees:

--Since the Australian requires a premium, I can only give you a quote, instead of a link. If someone can see over the wall, I would like to see a copy of the article posted. See below a quote from the article.

    "Federal cabinet has ruled that Australia will not sign up to any new contributions, taxes or charges at this week’s global summit on climate change, in a significant toughening of its stance as it plans to move within days to repeal the carbon tax.

    Cabinet ministers have decided to reject any measures of “socialism masquerading as environmentalism” after meeting last week to consider a submission on the position the government would take to the Warsaw conference. …

    The Australian has seen part of the document and it declares that, while Australia will remain “a good international citizen” and remains “committed to achieving the 5 per cent reduction” by 2020 of the 2000 levels of emissions, it will not sign up to any new agreement that involves spending money or levying taxes. …

--Clearly if the previous government was serious about CO2 abatement, they could have ceased Coal Exports to China, instead they settled for putting a millstone around the neck of the Australian people."
   
"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
Benjamin Franklin  1706 - 1790



Best Regards
Clear Ether

[nctnico]

"Dave for president" it is then.

[dr.diesel]

And for the record, Piers Morgan is a presumptuous cock.

 

Finally, something we can all agree on.   

[SgtRock]

Dear Mr. Stanley:

--Clear Ether is a somewhat archaic term for sign off of radio communication, made popular by E.E. "Doc" Smith, science fiction author of the Lensman Series. Doc Smith was famous for ignoring the implications of the Theory of Relativity, I.E. his spaceships went FTL with no need for folding space or warp drives, nonetheless, reading his books was the fond pastime of many a youth and his works are still republished occasionally.

--I hardly think I am sh***ing on you generation by pointing out the fact that some of the AGW Affirmers want to prevent debate opponents from speaking, and also from working. You could just present your facts, rather than indulging in hateful demonization. National Socialism is for all intents and purposes dead, but the Stalinist form of Socialism, is not, it lives on in Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, and in those who try to summon up hatred for, and pogroms against the loyal opposition.

--Do I understand that you are in favor of making non-persons of those who disagree and preventing their publication, and even gainful employment in their chosen fields?

--As for Piers Morgan, known for falsifying British Soldier atrocities for the BBC, and calling guests on his show "incredibly stupid", even a stopped clock...   

"We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."
Benjamin Franklin  1706 - 1790

Best Regards
Clear Ether