41 replies to this topic

[stevedebi]

Oh puhleeze. That's like having a subsidy on Android and saying Apple "chooses not to participate in the Android subsidy" by developing iOS. 

Two different vendors. It is more like having subsidies on battery powered phones vs solar powered phones. But in any case, yes, I think you have it exactly. Subsidies are available based on the needs of the economy.

[flyingcheesehead]

As I said, you don't have to get oil from fossils, it can be synthesized.

 

 

How much energy does that take? And aren't they still using some natural base stocks?

 

We may not be to the alternative as cheap and convenient as gasoline, but Tesla is getting us close, and I'm willing to spend a bit extra to have the extra enjoyment of electric driving. As are 325,000 of my newest friends.  

[openair]

How much energy does that take? And aren't they still using some natural base stocks?

Certainly isn't as cheap or convenient as foreign oil and fracking or we wouldn't be importing, causing earth quakes and polluting ground water instead.

BTW, I wonder how Steve quantifies the yet unknown and ever increasing health and property costs associated with fracking and fossil fuels in general in their "cheaper and more convenient."

Edited by openair, 11 April 2016 - 01:04 PM.

[stevedebi]

Certainly isn't as cheap or convenient as foreign oil and fracking or we wouldn't be importing, causing earth quakes and polluting ground water instead.

BTW, I wonder how Steve quantifies the yet unknown and ever increasing health and property costs associated with fracking and fossil fuels in general in their "cheaper and more convenient."

No, because I don't particularly believe the health scares. We are still putting far more pollution out with EV cars than the newest ICE vehicles, or hybrid vehicles. Those news stories were based on "calculated" costs, not actual costs; there are no hard numbers.

 

I agree that it isn't economically feasible to make oil synthetically yet, just as I think it isn't economically feasible to have an electric car - yet. Although I read of a battery technology that has recently been invented that has a lot of promise for lowering costs and making electric more competitive. This isn't the article I read, but this is the tech:

 

http://ipfrontline.c...es-for-patents/

 

Look, I'm not "anti-electric". I just think the economics are not there. I love driving EV in my Energi, for as long as the battery lasts. Then I love getting 40 MPG on the highway - using ICE.

[openair]

No, because I don't particularly believe the health scares. We are still putting far more pollution out with EV cars than the newest ICE vehicles, or hybrid vehicles. Those news stories were based on "calculated" costs, not actual costs; there are no hard numbers.

There are no hard numbers yet you state hybrids and Ev's cause more pollution like it's a fact based on numbers. I state it's not true based on the same non hard numbers.

Synthetics are also more expensive than oil sands. Investment in oil sands has declined to a low not seen in 70 years since the price of oil has fallen this low. While investments in EV tech and renewable green energy continue to grow. Those seem like hard numbers to me. I wonder what other numbers these investors are looking at...

Edited by openair, 11 April 2016 - 03:23 PM.

[stevedebi]

There are no hard numbers yet you state hybrids and Ev's cause more pollution like it's a fact based on numbers. I state it's not true based on the same non hard numbers.

Synthetics are also more expensive than oil sands. Investment in oil sands has declined to a low not seen in 70 years since the price of oil has fallen this low. While investments in EV tech and renewable green energy continue to grow. Those seem like hard numbers to me. I wonder what other numbers these investors are looking at...

I should have been more specific. When running, modern ICE cars are pretty clean in terms of air. I was recalling reports that in some cases a hybrid will actually clean the air - it comes out the tailpipe cleaner than it came in. The EV will not put out pollutants, but the energy used does come from polluting sources.

 

The recent reports about health costs of ICE vehicles (most recently diesels) are based on assumptions and averages, not hard numbers.

 

The pollution has been studied. When you factor in the cost of electricity, EVs are not necessarily always as environmentally clean as folks think. A lot of it depends on what kind of pollution you are considering, and how the electricity is generated. Both EV, PHEV, and hybrid cost more pollution to build than an ICE vehicle.

 

http://www.citylab.c...as-cars/397136/

http://www.ucsusa.or...le-ev-emissions

 

I'm not considering CO2, I'm speaking of air pollution.

 

But my primary point in all this is the business model not yet being viable, due to economic costs, and that the range and convenience issues are still too high for popular adoption.

Edited by stevedebi, 12 April 2016 - 08:09 AM.

[openair]

Your own links are divided on the issue. The second states hybrids are cleaner. They both state evs are cleaner in many states depending on the grid.

The problem here is the grid in eastern states. Not EVs. There are also entire countries that have grids as clean as the western states.

Ontario, Canada power generation today: https://www.cns-snc....lectricity.html

The only air pollution on the list is gas at 6% and biofuels at 1%. Edit: Oh, gas is up to 25% when the wind is low. Still, ~75% emission free.

Edited by openair, 13 April 2016 - 03:52 AM.

[meyersnole]

Would you not agree that the grid is becoming cleaner?

 

Many coal power plants have been cancelled, but even the new ones that come online will be cleaner than existing coal power plants. 

 

Many new renewable power sources have been coming online due to regulation and public relations by some larger companies. 

 

I just did a quick search to come up with this, so apologies if the data is skewed. 

 

Major energy sources and percent share of total U.S. electricity generation in 2015:¹ 

• Coal = 33%
• Natural gas = 33%
• Nuclear = 20%
• Hydropower = 6%
• Other renewables = 7%
  • Biomass = 1.6%
  • Geothermal = 0.4%
  • Solar = 0.6%
  • Wind = 4.7%
• Petroleum = 1%
• Other gases = <1%

If I had to guess where we are heading, I would expect the natural gas number to grow along with the renewables at a lower rate at the expense of coal. I do not really follow this industry, but I do like to read about the advancements in renewables. Super efficient wind farm designs, printable solar panels, etc. 

 

I do find it sad that we do not seem to have visionaries today to take us to the next level like we had in the previous century. We did not build the federal highway system because of the economic force it became, travel to the moon because there was a thought that commercial space flight was the next frontier. Today we, collectively, seem to be driven more by economic viability over all else while yesterday's achievements crumble.  

[flyingcheesehead]

I should have been more specific. When running, modern ICE cars are pretty clean in terms of air. I was recalling reports that in some cases a hybrid will actually clean the air - it comes out the tailpipe cleaner than it came in.

 

How is that even possible? A hybrid still uses a gas engine, it just isn't on all the time and can be run at more efficient RPM ranges and regenerate instead of wasting energy by heating brake pads, but it does still use a gas engine which does still require taking oxygen out of the air and burning it, generating CO, CO2, etc.

[openair]

http://www.theglobea...rticle29583676/

Netherlands looks to ban all gas and diesel cars by 2025.

Edited by openair, 14 April 2016 - 06:14 AM.

[stevedebi]

http://www.theglobea...rticle29583676/

Netherlands looks to ban all gas and diesel cars by 2025.

Well, it hasn't actually been passed into law. Still not sure if it is useful, considering that they get so much power from fossil fuel anyway. But then Holland is a small country, and folks ride a lot of bikes there anyway. I'd expect hydrogen to get big if they actually did this.

[stevedebi]

How is that even possible? A hybrid still uses a gas engine, it just isn't on all the time and can be run at more efficient RPM ranges and regenerate instead of wasting energy by heating brake pads, but it does still use a gas engine which does still require taking oxygen out of the air and burning it, generating CO, CO2, etc.

The articles came out a while back, now when I search it only shows how to change out the air cleaner in the Prius!

 

As I recall, if the air is dirty enough, the catalyst will actually reduce the pollution such that the tailpipe air was better than the incoming air. But I didn't research it much. I'm not sure I believe it either, especially since in the past 20 years the air has been getting cleaner in the US anyway (so it may not be true any more).

[openair]

Well, it hasn't actually been passed into law. Still not sure if it is useful, considering that they get so much power from fossil fuel anyway. But then Holland is a small country, and folks ride a lot of bikes there anyway. I'd expect hydrogen to get big if they actually did this.

Yes, that is what "looks" in their title implies. If it were not tentative in some way they would have just said "has."

Edited by openair, 14 April 2016 - 01:01 PM.

[flyingcheesehead]

400,000 reservations for the Model 3. Your move, Ford, what's it gonna be?

 

I would replace my Fusion Energi with a Fusion Electric, or an Escape Energi or Edge Energi. Even better would be one of the SUVs in an electric-only model! 

 

Of course, there would need to be good (200+ mile in winter) range and some charging infrastructure in place that would allow for long-distance road trips. That either means partnering with Tesla to make use of the Supercharger network, or rolling your own.

 

Most likely, though, what it means is that not only will I replace one of my Fords with a Tesla, I'll probably be going all-Tesla before too much longer. I'm starting to regret only reserving one Model 3! Maybe we'll get a Model Y.

[stevedebi]

400,000 reservations for the Model 3. Your move, Ford, what's it gonna be?

 

I would replace my Fusion Energi with a Fusion Electric, or an Escape Energi or Edge Energi. Even better would be one of the SUVs in an electric-only model! 

 

Of course, there would need to be good (200+ mile in winter) range and some charging infrastructure in place that would allow for long-distance road trips. That either means partnering with Tesla to make use of the Supercharger network, or rolling your own.

 

Most likely, though, what it means is that not only will I replace one of my Fords with a Tesla, I'll probably be going all-Tesla before too much longer. I'm starting to regret only reserving one Model 3! Maybe we'll get a Model Y.

Lets see, Ford sold 780,354 F-150s last year - each one making up to 13K profit. Those 400K reservations cover how many years?

 

http://www.thedailyb...-s-company.html

 

But one can also find pie-in-the-sky articles that support Tesla. Most of the ones I've read are just fanboy hype. Time will tell.

 

The problem with reporting on Tesla today is that so many articles come from a deep slant, either for or against electrics. But as several articles have pointed out, it is easy to build an expensive car in low numbers and make a profit; it is much harder to build a cheap car in high numbers and make a profit.

Edited by stevedebi, 25 April 2016 - 11:47 AM.

[JATR4]

"Ford paid nearly $200,000 for a Tesla Model X just so it could figure out what the electric car maker is hatching.

Ford F -0.22% recently paid $199,950 to an individual who has bought and sold nearly a dozen Tesla TSLA -0.79% Model S vehicles. Perhaps most surprisingly, Ford paid about $55,000 more than the sticker price on the Model X just to get its hands on Tesla’s crossover."

 

http://fortune.com/2...-tesla-model-x/

Edited by JATR4, 25 April 2016 - 12:27 PM.

[flyingcheesehead]

 

"Ford paid nearly $200,000 for a Tesla Model X just so it could figure out what the electric car maker is hatching.

Ford F -0.22% recently paid $199,950 to an individual who has bought and sold nearly a dozen Tesla TSLA -0.79% Model S vehicles. Perhaps most surprisingly, Ford paid about $55,000 more than the sticker price on the Model X just to get its hands on Tesla’s crossover."

 

http://fortune.com/2...-tesla-model-x/

 

 

 

So there is hope.

[stevedebi]

 

"Ford paid nearly $200,000 for a Tesla Model X just so it could figure out what the electric car maker is hatching.

Ford F -0.22% recently paid $199,950 to an individual who has bought and sold nearly a dozen Tesla TSLA -0.79% Model S vehicles. Perhaps most surprisingly, Ford paid about $55,000 more than the sticker price on the Model X just to get its hands on Tesla’s crossover."

 

http://fortune.com/2...-tesla-model-x/

 

Yep, smart to study the competition and see what they can "borrow" without breaking any patents!

[flyingcheesehead]

Lets see, Ford sold 780,354 F-150s last year - each one making up to 13K profit. Those 400K reservations cover how many years?

 

Less than one, when their production is fully ramped up. But what it does do is show that there is a lot of pent-up demand for a fully electric car that:

 

1) Has reasonable range and good infrastructure available. People don't want to have to rent a car or own another one for road trips.

2) Is priced relatively affordably. I'd buy a Model S in a heartbeat if I could afford it, but most of us can't.

3) Has appealing design (Doesn't look like a suppository). Apple has proven that design matters. Tesla is one of the few companies of any kind that are doing the same kinds of things that have led to Apple's success.

4) Has good performance. Eco-friendly is great, but not if there's no FUN. I drive gently enough to get 25+ miles from my Energi, but there would be times I'd love Ludicrous acceleration too!

[murphy]

Yep, smart to study the competition and see what they can "borrow" without breaking any patents!

Tesla made their patents available for free.