PDA

View Full Version : Following Tesla's good news, Fox conveniently forgets government loan


The Lone Bolt
05-29-2013, 07:25 PM
:D

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WcHkIWkecY8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

broncocalijohn
05-29-2013, 10:15 PM
Tesla's stock has doubled this year but they are a new company that has not turned a profit and owes a ton of money. It would be great to have a successful US company in almost 50 years but the production numbers, while they seem to be up, are still a very small number compared to gas guzzling cars.

I also noticed other companies that have gone belly up in the video. Would you consider forgetting about those disasters that left the only people with more money coming out were Obama's buddies? As a taxpayer, I know I am one of millions to get screwed.

The Lone Bolt
05-29-2013, 11:29 PM
Tesla's stock has doubled this year but they are a new company that has not turned a profit and owes a ton of money. It would be great to have a successful US company in almost 50 years but the production numbers, while they seem to be up, are still a very small number compared to gas guzzling cars.

Tesla is profitable

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/us-autos-tesla-idUSBRE94716E20130508

And has paid off its government loans in full

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/05/22/tesla-loan-energy-department/2351945/

I also noticed other companies that have gone belly up in the video. Would you consider forgetting about those disasters that left the only people with more money coming out were Obama's buddies? As a taxpayer, I know I am one of millions to get screwed.

We're reaping the benefits, not "getting screwed."

“More than 90 percent of loan loss reserve Congress established remains intact, while losses to date represent about 2 percent of the overall $34 billion portfolio. The other 98 percent of the portfolio includes 19 new clean energy power plants that are adding enough solar, wind and geothermal capacity to power a million homes and displace 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year – roughly equal to taking a million cars off the road.

http://environmental-expert.com/news/moniz-tesla-repayment-shows-the-strength-of-energy-department-s-overall-loan-portfolio-374792

cutthemdown
05-29-2013, 11:48 PM
19 power plants for 1 million homes. What is the cost of them per killowat. If its not competitive with fossil fuels then its a waste of money.

cutthemdown
05-29-2013, 11:48 PM
No one is arguing that you can't build power plants and get them working. Solar, wind ones etc. The argument is the price per killowatt is not feasible or sustainable. Once the subsidies stop they will close.

The Lone Bolt
05-30-2013, 12:00 AM
No one is arguing that you can't build power plants and get them working. Solar, wind ones etc. The argument is the price per killowatt is not feasible or sustainable. Once the subsidies stop they will close.

Uh huh. Back up your position with evidence or admit that you're making stuff up.

cutthemdown
05-30-2013, 04:45 AM
Uh huh. Back up your position with evidence or admit that you're making stuff up.

I posed that as a question. The person is making claims these power plants are such a great investment. But they didn't show any numbers. How is that me needing to back up anything? That is me asking what the numbers are before you go saying what a success it is.

cutthemdown
05-30-2013, 04:52 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source


There you go spells out how natural gas with co2 capture would still be way cheaper then solar or wind.

Solar and wind without govt subsidies on killowatts produced would not even be a viable business. Govt is giving them money to produce energy and its not sustainable.

Rohirrim
05-30-2013, 07:01 AM
OP just proves that the only reason Fox exists is to spew RW propaganda.

broncocalijohn
05-30-2013, 09:31 AM
Quote:
“More than 90 percent of loan loss reserve Congress established remains intact, while losses to date represent about 2 percent of the overall $34 billion portfolio. The other 98 percent of the portfolio includes 19 new clean energy power plants that are adding enough solar, wind and geothermal capacity to power a million homes and displace 7 million metric tons of carbon dioxide every year – roughly equal to taking a million cars off the road.




Seems many of the companies given loans had no money issues to begin with like Nissan and Goldman Sachs.
http://mercatus.org/expert_commentary/get-uncle-sam-out-green-startup-loan-business

Those "start ups" given loans also happen to be buddies of the Obama administration and also give millions to the DNP.


"Nevertheless, a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers ... a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party. The grant and guaranteed-loan recipients were early backers of Obama before he ran for president, people who continued to give to his campaigns and exclusively to the Democratic Party in the years leading up to 2008."

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2011/11/13/how-obama-s-alternative-energy-programs-became-green-graft.html

Fedaykin
05-30-2013, 10:51 AM
Why are conservatives so afraid of non-dino powered tech? So afraid they are willing to remain willfully ignorant and/or simply lie about things.

broncocalijohn
05-30-2013, 10:55 AM
Why are conservatives so afraid of non-dino powered tech? So afraid they are willing to remain willfully ignorant and/or simply lie about things.

I will ask our former VP about this when he gets back from his jet setting flights across the US.

Rigs11
05-30-2013, 12:43 PM
the righties never like good news. ever. Unemployment down? Bad numbers.economy growing? won't last.obama visiting disaster areas? photo op.

The Lone Bolt
05-30-2013, 02:05 PM
Why are conservatives so afraid of non-dino powered tech? So afraid they are willing to remain willfully ignorant and/or simply lie about things.

Because Saudi-owned Faux News told them that EVs are bad. Imagine that. ::)

BroncoBeavis
05-30-2013, 02:48 PM
Because Saudi-owned Faux News told them that EVs are bad. Imagine that. ::)

Nobody said they're bad. They just don't fundamentally solve any real problems. They have advantages in limited scenarios, and in other scenarios they have severe limitations which render them nearly useless.

Nobody's rooting against Tesla. There's just nothing about what they're doing that's world changing.

The Lone Bolt
05-30-2013, 03:27 PM
Nobody said they're bad. They just don't fundamentally solve any real problems.

I disagree.

Problem: The time wasted and exposure to noxious fumes at gas stations.
Solution: EVs. Drive around all day, plug in at home, charge overnight, wake up the next day with a full charge, never waste time at a gas station again.

Problem: Time and money spent on ICE maintenance.
Solution: EVs. No oil changes. No filter changes. No fluid changes of any kind. No spark plugs. No tune-ups. Ever.

Additionally, internal combustion engines have over 200 moving parts. Electric motors have one. Which is more likely to break down hmm?

Problem: Poor performance of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Silent, linear acceleration and 100% torque at 0 RPM.

Problem: Safety of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Extra crumple zone in front due to lack of an engine.

Problem: High fuel costs.
Solution: EVs. Electricity is far cheaper than gas and always will be.

And I won't even bring up the environmental angle.

Now granted gas cars fuel up a lot faster that EVs. IMO that advantage is marginal. On long road trips almost everyone is going to want to take a rest break after hours behind the wheel. Tesla Superchargers can now get you 3 more hours of driving in the 20 minutes it takes to grab a coffee and read the paper. And rapid charging is unlimited.

And free. Can you get free gas anywhere?


Nobody's rooting against Tesla. There's just nothing about what they're doing that's world changing.

Faux News has clearly been rooting against Tesla and other EVs.

Rohirrim
05-30-2013, 03:33 PM
I disagree.

Problem: The time wasted and exposure to noxious fumes at gas stations.
Solution: EVs. Drive around all day, plug in at home, charge overnight, wake up the next day with a full charge, never waste time at a gas station again.

Problem: Time and money spent on ICE maintenance.
Solution: EVs. No oil changes. No filter changes. No fluid changes of any kind. No spark plugs. No tune-ups. Ever.

Additionally, internal combustion engines have over 200 moving parts. Electric motors have one. Which is more likely to break down hmm?

Problem: Poor performance of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Silent, linear acceleration and 100% torque at 0 RPM.

Problem: Safety of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Extra crumple zone in front due to lack of an engine.

Problem: High fuel costs.
Solution: EVs. Electricity is far cheaper than gas and always will be.

And I won't even bring up the environmental angle.

Now granted gas cars fuel up a lot faster that EVs. IMO that advantage is marginal. On long road trips almost everyone is going to want to take a rest break after hours behind the wheel. Tesla Superchargers can now get you 3 more hours of driving in the 20 minutes it takes to grab a coffee and read the paper. And rapid charging is unlimited.

And free. Can you get free gas anywhere?




Faux News has clearly been rooting against Tesla and other EVs.

Dayum! That about wraps that up. Ha!

The Lone Bolt
05-30-2013, 03:41 PM
Dayum! That about wraps that up. Ha!

:thanku:

BroncoBeavis
05-30-2013, 04:17 PM
I disagree.

Problem: The time wasted and exposure to noxious fumes at gas stations.
Solution: EVs. Drive around all day, plug in at home, charge overnight, wake up the next day with a full charge, never waste time at a gas station again.

You must lead a pretty boring life if your car is free to just sit and do nothing but charge every night of the week. On a standard 110v outlet, it looks like you get about 5 miles of travel for every hour of charge. So I can spend 10 minutes at the pump every week or two to get 300-500 miles of travel. Or I can put my EV out of commission for the equivalent of a few days to obtain that same amount of travel. LOL

And you call this a problem solved.

Problem: Time and money spent on ICE maintenance.
Solution: EVs. No oil changes. No filter changes. No fluid changes of any kind. No spark plugs. No tune-ups. Ever.

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079637_tesla-model-s-service-contract-600-year-or-warranty-voided

Tesla Model S Service Contract: $600/Year, Or Warranty Voided

$600 a year will buy you a whole assload of maintenance. And any time involved will be infinitesimal compared to the inherent every-day downtime required by an EV.


Additionally, internal combustion engines have over 200 moving parts. Electric motors have one. Which is more likely to break down hmm?

You're forgetting about managing all that battery heat and current that brings a whole new set of problems. It remains to be seen whether there's any payoff in reliability.

Problem: Poor performance of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Silent, linear acceleration and 100% torque at 0 RPM.

I don't think this performance 'difference' would be defined as much of a 'problem' by most everyday drivers.

Problem: Safety of ICE cars.
Solution: EVs. Extra crumple zone in front due to lack of an engine.

That's one perspective. But it will take years to learn the real safety implications of strapping yourself to a ton or two of heavy metal and acid blocks to see how that all plays out. In the luxury segment, it's pretty difficult to call the Tesla any safer than it's expensive competition.

Problem: High fuel costs.
Solution: EVs. Electricity is far cheaper than gas and always will be.

As we've been over before, from an economic standpoint, a Tesla would take many many years to pay off it's price premium. Whether Liquid-fueled or Dino-powered-by-wire is only one part of that picture. :)

And I won't even bring up the environmental angle.

Because there really isn't one.

broncocalijohn
05-30-2013, 04:28 PM
Dayum! That about wraps that up. Ha!

and cost vs a gas guzzling car? I don't think it wrapped it completely up. It has not replaced it...yet.

Rohirrim
05-30-2013, 04:35 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/30/autos/elon-musk-tesla-supercharger/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

The automobile will never replace horses. They're noisy. They stink. They emit smoke. They're always breaking down. We have no roads to accommodate them. They get stuck in the mud. The ride is horrible. etcetera etcetera etcetera

BroncoLifer
05-30-2013, 04:40 PM
A different perspective on Tesla here:
http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/tesla-and-its-flashy-founder-a-skeptical-reading.html/?a=viewall



"Electric vehicle manufacturer Tesla’s (NASDAQ:TSLA (http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stock-research/company?qs=TSLA)) stock has rocketed up after the company reported positive earningshttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/icon1.png (http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/tesla-and-its-flashy-founder-a-skeptical-reading.html/?a=viewall#) and operating cash flow for the first quarter. The stock had been heavily shorted, and short covering evidently fueled the stock’s take-off.


Color me skeptical. The company was heavily shorted for good reason, and is even more ripe for shorting after the run-up. (Personal opinion. Not investment advice. You’re on your own about that.)


For one thing, although operating results did improve from the (really terrible 3/4Q12), the much hyped earnings number was put into positive territory by two items: a write-down of a warrant that Tesla granted the U.S. Department of Energy as part of a $465 million DOE loan to the company, and FX gains (mainly on yen). Not repeatable. And the first seems highly dodgy to me — a squishy number based on an assumption that Tesla will be able to pay off the loan.


I’m also skeptical because of the near miraculous nature of the turnaround. Mere months ago, the company was in dire straits (http://articles.marketwatch.com/2012-12-20/commentary/35920896_1_ceo-elon-musk-cash-flow-tesla-motors):
It’s a lucky thing for Tesla Motors shareholders that the U.S. Department of Energy loves the companys loan applications.
Without the hundreds of millions of dollars Tesla has received from the federal government this year, the electric-car makers financials would be gasping for air as 2012 winds down.

Given the ugly state of Tesla’s finances — and the company’s sky-high valuation: almost $4 billion — it will rank among the top candidates in Silicon Valley for a 2013 stock collapse, unless it receives significantly more cash next year.
I get a whiff of a company that needed a miracle to stave off disaster. Maybe it got one, but I am always skeptical of miracles whenever accounting is involved. And that’s certainly the case here. The shorts have been bloodied, but they’ll be back. Indeed, this seems like a typical battle in a war between a dodgy company and short sellers.
(..)

It received the $465 mm loan from DOE, but it also benefits from a $7500/car federal subsidy for electric cars. Moreover, it benefits from the State of California’s Zero Emissions Credit program (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20012374-48.html). In its infinite wisdom, CA mandated that all the major auto companies sell a certain number of zero emissions vehicles. If they don’t they have to buy credits from companies that do make them — namely Tesla. This was also essential in putting the company in the black in Q1, and the company is sitting on $250 mm worth of these credits (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/05/business/la-fi-electric-cars-20130506).


IOW, Tesla’s profits are courtesy of you, the taxpayer — and also courtesy of the shareholders of Ford (NYSE:F (http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stock-research/company?qs=F)), GM (NYSE:GM (http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stock-research/company?qs=GM)), Toyota (NYSE:TM (http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stock-research/company?qs=TM)), Honda (NYSE:HMC (http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stock-research/company?qs=HMC)), etc."

The Lone Bolt
05-30-2013, 04:59 PM
You must lead a pretty boring life if your car is free to just sit and do nothing but charge every night of the week. On a standard 110v outlet, it looks like you get about 5 miles of travel for every hour of charge. So I can spend 10 minutes at the pump every week or two to get 300-500 miles of travel. Or I can put my EV out of commission for the equivalent of a few days to obtain that same amount of travel. LOL

And you call this a problem solved.

Every home has a 220v outlet. That will fully charge your car as you sleep. You know, while you're "doing nothing"?

http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1079637_tesla-model-s-service-contract-600-year-or-warranty-voided

Tesla Model S Service Contract: $600/Year, Or Warranty Voided

$600 a year will buy you a whole assload of maintenance. And any time involved will be infinitesimal compared to the inherent every-day downtime required by an EV.

You're behind the times here. The service plan is now optional and does not void the warranty.

You're forgetting about managing all that battery heat and current that brings a whole new set of problems. It remains to be seen whether there's any payoff in reliability.

So far Tesla, and GM for that matter, have had no problems with their battery thermal management systems -- with millions of miles logged on their cars. I think the verdict is in on this one.

I don't think this performance 'difference' would be defined as much of a 'problem' by most everyday drivers.

It becomes one once they drive an EV.

That's one perspective. But it will take years to learn the real safety implications of strapping yourself to a ton or two of heavy metal and acid blocks to see how that all plays out. In the luxury segment, it's pretty difficult to call the Tesla any safer than it's expensive competition.

As opposed to strapping yourself to a ton or two of heavy metal and explosive liquid? Really?

Pretty weak argument.

As we've been over before, from an economic standpoint, a Tesla would take many many years to pay off it's price premium. Whether Liquid-fueled or Dino-powered-by-wire is only one part of that picture. :)

For now. The prices are going to come down as time goes by. Battery tech has a long way to go. ICE tech is reaching it's peak and won't see any more dramatic improvements.

Because there really isn't one.

The Union of Concerned Scientists disagrees: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html

But I'm sure you're much smarter than them, right? Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
05-30-2013, 06:21 PM
Every home has a 220v outlet. That will fully charge your car as you sleep. You know, while you're "doing nothing"?

In the garage? Not likely. I know I know, you can bring in the electrician. Still, even at 220v, you're talking about hours every day of a car being unavailable. Far more downtime than 10 minutes every couple weeks at a gas station.

I'm not saying you can't do things to live with the Tesla's limitations in certain scenarios. But calling refueling an ICV a 'problem' when in reality it's far more convenient (to an ordinary lifestyle) than charging an EV is comical.


You're behind the times here. The service plan is now optional and does not void the warranty.

That's nice. But from a price perspective, it matters little. Tesla's (virtually non-existent) service network and tiny scale is going to make long-term service inarguably more expensive than maintaining more common mass-produced vehicle brands.

So far Tesla, and GM for that matter, have had no problems with their battery thermal management systems -- with millions of miles logged on their cars. I think the verdict is in on this one.

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/tesla-recalling-439-roadsters-for-fire-hazard/

Tesla Recalling 439 Roadsters for Fire Hazard

http://www.dailytech.com/After+Fire+Issues+GM+Prepares+for+Volt+Recall/article23684.htm

After Fire Issues, GM Prepares for Volt "Recall"

Boeing decided to use this same type of battery in it's dreamliners. They tested and tested and got FAA clearance. Then the realities of a production environment kicked in. And it was back to the drawing board. And that doesn't even touch the aging issues. These vehicles are extremely new. It's ridiculous to be saying they're comparable over the long term, when there is virtually zero long-term record to base that on.


As opposed to strapping yourself to a ton or two of heavy metal and explosive liquid? Really?

I meant heavy metal in the chemistry sense. And cars have had to improve their fuel handling over the decades for safety's sake. With EV's, you're starting all over again.

For now. The prices are going to come down as time goes by. Battery tech has a long way to go. ICE tech is reaching it's peak and won't see any more dramatic improvements.

Battery 'tech' is basically as old as the ICE. We're back again to this idea that putting a battery on wheels makes it a 'new' technology. There might be progress there. But there is progress everywhere.

http://www.greencar.com/articles/honda-civic-natural-gas-2012-green-car-year.php

Honda Civic Natural Gas is 2012 Green Car of the Year

Meanwhile, in the real world we have a bunch of Lawyers in Washington picking the best (politically connected) technology to subsidize. That sounds like just about the least rational approach anyone could ever come up with.

The Union of Concerned Scientists disagrees: http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/smart-transportation-solutions/advanced-vehicle-technologies/electric-cars/emissions-and-charging-costs-electric-cars.html

But I'm sure you're much smarter than them, right? Hilarious!

We've seen this article before. The one where they compare super-expensive EVs to fictionally comparable cars only getting 27mpg. I had a 5-passenger car 15 years ago that could get 27mpg. LOL

The Lone Bolt
05-30-2013, 08:03 PM
In the garage? Not likely. I know I know, you can bring in the electrician. Still, even at 220v, you're talking about hours every day of a car being unavailable. Far more downtime than 10 minutes every couple weeks at a gas station.

I'm not saying you can't do things to live with the Tesla's limitations in certain scenarios. But calling refueling an ICV a 'problem' when in reality it's far more convenient (to an ordinary lifestyle) than charging an EV is comical.

Dude, if you have a 265 mile range your car will almost never be "unavailable." You're typically just topping off overnight. Most people drive maybe 40 miles a day.

And if you drive over 200 miles every day you could use a rapid charger station to make up for it. So once again, the car will be available.

That's nice. But from a price perspective, it matters little. Tesla's (virtually non-existent) service network and tiny scale is going to make long-term service inarguably more expensive than maintaining more common mass-produced vehicle brands.

Let's review shall we? No oil changes. No tuneups. No fluid changes of any kind. Only one moving part in an electric motor. What makes you think that the service and repair requirements will be the same as an ICE car?

http://wheels.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/08/tesla-recalling-439-roadsters-for-fire-hazard/

Tesla Recalling 439 Roadsters for Fire Hazard

http://www.dailytech.com/After+Fire+Issues+GM+Prepares+for+Volt+Recall/article23684.htm

After Fire Issues, GM Prepares for Volt "Recall"

Boeing decided to use this same type of battery in it's dreamliners. They tested and tested and got FAA clearance. Then the realities of a production environment kicked in. And it was back to the drawing board. And that doesn't even touch the aging issues. These vehicles are extremely new. It's ridiculous to be saying they're comparable over the long term, when there is virtually zero long-term record to base that on.

Oh yes, this baloney. First of all the Volt battery:

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's official word on the Chevrolet Volt fire incident is out, and it's all good. Following a two-month investigation into the crash test that resulted in a fire three weeks after the fact last summer, NHTSA says it "does not believe that Chevy Volts or other electric vehicles pose a greater risk of fire than gasoline-powered vehicles."

http://green.autoblog.com/2012/01/23/nhtsa-volt-investigation-proves-plug-in-vehicles-do-not-pose-a/

And there's no reason to believe that there are any long-term safety concerns. Wake me when you have evidence of any.

As far as the Tesla Roadster, your own linked article reports:

The automaker told the safety agency that the defect was not part of the “electric drive main power system” that moves the vehicle. The recalled models are the 2010 Roadster 2.0 and Roadster 2.5 with “a 12-volt auxiliary cable.”

Tesla said the system used “a small lead acid battery as a backup power source to the vehicle’s main electrical system. The auxiliary power system provides power to various other systems, including the headlamps, taillights, stop lamps, turn signals (including hazard lights), air bags and the E.C.U. in the unlikely event that primary 12V power from the lithium-ion battery pack fails or drops below a minimum threshold value.”

So this was not a problem with the battery thermal management system.


I meant heavy metal in the chemistry sense.

You said a "ton or two." That's the weight of the whole car.

And cars have had to improve their fuel handling over the decades for safety's sake. With EV's, you're starting all over again.

Maybe. But results in the real world so far have been very good. And in the opinion of NHTSA, they're just as safe as gas cars.

Battery 'tech' is basically as old as the ICE. We're back again to this idea that putting a battery on wheels makes it a 'new' technology. There might be progress there. But there is progress everywhere.

http://www.greencar.com/articles/honda-civic-natural-gas-2012-green-car-year.php

Honda Civic Natural Gas is 2012 Green Car of the Year

Meanwhile, in the real world we have a bunch of Lawyers in Washington picking the best (politically connected) technology to subsidize. That sounds like just about the least rational approach anyone could ever come up with.

Not sure you can prove that the reason was political connections.


We've seen this article before. The one where they compare super-expensive EVs to fictionally comparable cars only getting 27mpg. I had a 5-passenger car 15 years ago that could get 27mpg. LOL

This may surprise you but not every car gets 39 MPG.

Rohirrim
05-30-2013, 08:13 PM
Here's some good reading if you want to find out why EVs are so expensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batter ies

Basically, it's because Chevron wants it that way.

The Lone Bolt
05-30-2013, 08:31 PM
Here's some good reading if you want to find out why EVs are so expensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batter ies

Basically, it's because Chevron wants it that way.

EVs today use Li-Ion batteries. NiMH is obsolete. And Chevron has no patent control over Li-Ion chemistries.

BTW, prices per Kw Hour have been steadily dropping and continue to drop.

BroncoBeavis
05-30-2013, 08:31 PM
Here's some good reading if you want to find out why EVs are so expensive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batter ies

Basically, it's because Chevron wants it that way.

NiMH isn't efficient enough to build use for serious transportation. It's cheaper but theoretical range would be much worse than what Li-Ion is capable of.

The Lone Bolt
05-30-2013, 08:34 PM
NiMH isn't efficient enough to build use for serious transportation. It's cheaper but theoretical range would be much worse than what Li-Ion is capable of.

Plus it performs poorly in temperature extremes and is slow to recharge compared to Li-Ion chemistries.

BroncoBeavis
05-30-2013, 08:56 PM
This may surprise you but not every car gets 39 MPG.

That's true, but a 5-passenger sedan doesn't fit every need either.

Let's sum this thing up. If you're looking for efficiency followed closely by value, you're much better off with something along these lines...

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-volkswagen-passat-tdi-se-road-test-review

You can outfit the whole family with them for what it would cost for one Tesla almost-6-figure-commutermobile. And they'll take you as far as you'd ever want to drive.

There's no mass market appeal for the Tesla. They're neat and all. But this is their market...

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7FAI_-woNh4?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Once the EV is forced to compete in the rational vs the 'status symbol' market, there's really not much of a case to be made for them.

The Lone Bolt
05-30-2013, 09:22 PM
That's true, but a 5-passenger sedan doesn't fit every need either.

Let's sum this thing up. If you're looking for efficiency followed closely by value, you're much better off with something along these lines...

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2012-volkswagen-passat-tdi-se-road-test-review

You can outfit the whole family with them for what it would cost for one Tesla almost-6-figure-commutermobile. And they'll take you as far as you'd ever want to drive.

There's no mass market appeal for the Tesla. They're neat and all. But this is their market...


Once the EV is forced to compete in the rational vs the 'status symbol' market, there's really not much of a case to be made for them.

We'll see about that. I believe that not only will the price of EVs compare to their ICE counterparts by around 2020, by around 2030 they will be considerably cheaper. There is a great case to be made for them. The technology isn't quite there yet but it will be and when that happens the ICE is toast.

And the Passat is hardly comparable to the Model S.

cutthemdown
05-31-2013, 06:16 AM
Big problems in the solar industry with quality control. Probably because to make them at all profitable they have to cut corners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environment/solar-powers-dark-side.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

LOS ANGELES — The solar panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.

BroncoBeavis
05-31-2013, 07:14 AM
We'll see about that. I believe that not only will the price of EVs compare to their ICE counterparts by around 2020, by around 2030 they will be considerably cheaper. There is a great case to be made for them. The technology isn't quite there yet but it will be and when that happens the ICE is toast.

And the Passat is hardly comparable to the Model S.

Nobody can predict out on the 20 year horizon. I'm not saying EVs won't be important someday. But they won't be while they're based on current Li-Ion battery technology.

And if that battery technology gets significantly upgraded, it won't be because some niche car manufacturer was pumping out a few thousand battery-powered cars per year.

There are much much larger economic players pushing for that same technology. Tesla isn't even a drop in that bucket. But in the meantime, our broke government keeps subsidizing $100,000 status symbols for the 1% while insisting it doesn't have the means to keep even basic government functions running.

broncocalijohn
05-31-2013, 09:12 AM
Big problems in the solar industry with quality control. Probably because to make them at all profitable they have to cut corners.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environment/solar-powers-dark-side.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

LOS ANGELES — The solar panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.

Probably from China. I didn't click on the link but that is where some of the cheap panels are coming from to make Solar more affordable.

cutthemdown
05-31-2013, 09:34 AM
Probably from China. I didn't click on the link but that is where some of the cheap panels are coming from to make Solar more affordable.

It's a double edged sword when it comes to solar. They produce such little power for the cost the panels have to be super cheap for anyone to buy them. But the cheap panels don't work for even close to their stated lifespan.

Rohirrim
05-31-2013, 10:08 AM
NiMH isn't efficient enough to build use for serious transportation. It's cheaper but theoretical range would be much worse than what Li-Ion is capable of.

The question is, if the NiMHs were available, they'd make the cars much cheaper, and given the price of gas, a lot more attractive to the consumer. So what if they only give you a hundred miles a day? If 99% of your driving is less than 40 miles a day, it's a great deal. How many American families own two cars? Wouldn't it be an easy decision to make one of them an EV, even if it only gets a 100 miles per charge? Cut your gas and maintenance outflow in half?

What Chevron did is kill the transitional, cheaper technology that would get people into, and familiar with, EV technology. They're not stupid. They're greedy aholes, but they're not stupid.

cutthemdown
11-07-2013, 11:41 AM
Following Teslas bursting into flames from minor traffic accidents this thread may have been premature.

Rohirrim
11-07-2013, 01:14 PM
Remember the Pinto? ;D

The Lone Bolt
11-07-2013, 01:52 PM
Following Teslas bursting into flames from minor traffic accidents this thread may have been premature.

Three, all due to damage. One of the cars actually plowed through a cement wall and hit a tree then caught fire. The driver walked away with minor injuries.

In the meantime, how have internal combustion vehicles fared?

From 2008 to 2010, an estimated 194,000 highway
vehicle fires occurred in the United States each year
resulting in an annual average of approximately 300
deaths, 1,250 injuries and $1.1 billion in property loss.

http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf

Wow. Those gas vehicles are unsafe! They should be taken off the roads!

cutthemdown
11-07-2013, 02:27 PM
Three, all due to damage. One of the cars actually plowed through a cement wall and hit a tree then caught fire. The driver walked away with minor injuries.

In the meantime, how have internal combustion vehicles fared?



http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/statistics/v13i11.pdf

Wow. Those gas vehicles are unsafe! They should be taken off the roads!

LOL the latest one just hit debris in the road. Also considering not that many teslas on the road it is alarming.

The Lone Bolt
11-07-2013, 02:51 PM
LOL the latest one just hit debris in the road. Also considering not that many teslas on the road it is alarming.

There are thousands of Teslas on the road in the US. Last quarter sales alone were around 5,500. Only three have caught fire, and none due to mechanical failure.

How about those ICE cars?

The leading factor contributing to the ignition of highway vehicle fires was mechanical failure (44 percent)

That means around 85,800 gas-powered cars in the USA caught fire every year between 2008-2010 WITHOUT HITTING ANYTHING.

You sure you want to continue with this debate?

El Minion
11-07-2013, 03:33 PM
Thank you Ralph Nader :thumbsup: you saved countless of lives.

http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Design/Gartman/Books/Book_Front-cover_Nader.gif

Fedaykin
11-07-2013, 06:21 PM
There are thousands of Teslas on the road in the US. Last quarter sales alone were around 5,500. Only three have caught fire, and none due to mechanical failure.

How about those ICE cars?



That means around 85,800 gas-powered cars in the USA caught fire every year between 2008-2010 WITHOUT HITTING ANYTHING.

You sure you want to continue with this debate?

Once again cutlet caught displaying a stunning lack of critical thinking skills...

houghtam
11-07-2013, 06:36 PM
Once again cutlet caught displaying a stunning lack of critical thinking skills...

Yeah, but my favorite part of this thread was Beavis forgot that people sleep at night. :)

pricejj
11-07-2013, 09:02 PM
Why are conservatives so afraid of non-dino powered tech? So afraid they are willing to remain willfully ignorant and/or simply lie about things.

Obviously you have no clue of the primary drivers behind costs in an electric car. Until battery technology improves substantially, electric cars are not cost competitive.

Same thing goes for solar power generation. Renewable energy (solar, wind) is much more expensive than fossil fuels. Until that changes (which won't happen anytime soon), there is no reason to force increased costs onto the American public.

Whatever happened to "peak oil"? Lol.

This administration is EXTREMELY lucky that the fracking revolution is giving energy independence to the US, and with it a MASSIVE boost to the American economy. No thanks, to this administration, of course.

The Lone Bolt
11-11-2013, 02:42 PM
For those interested, the owner's testimonial from the latest incident:

I am thankful to God that I was totally uninjured in any way from this impact. Had I not been in a Tesla, that object could have punched through the floor and caused me serious harm. From the time of impact of the object until the time the car caught fire was about five minutes. During this time, the car warned me that it was damaged and instructed me to pull over. I never felt as though I was in any imminent danger. While driving after I hit the object until I pulled over, the car performed perfectly, and it was a totally controlled situation. There was never a point at which I was anywhere even close to any flames.

The firemen arrived promptly and applied water to the flames. They were about to pry open the doors, so I pressed my key button and the handles presented and everything worked even though the front of the car was on fire. No flames ever reached the cabin, and nothing inside was damaged. I was even able to get my papers and pens out of the glove compartment.

This experience does not in any way make me think that the Tesla Model S is an unsafe car. I would buy another one in a heartbeat.

http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-owner-tennessee

Rohirrim
11-11-2013, 02:46 PM
Some of the first cars to hit the roads in the old West there were a few incidents where inebriated old cowboys whipped out their Colts and shot them. Much like this thread. ;D

mhgaffney
11-11-2013, 04:58 PM
the righties never like good news. ever. Unemployment down? Bad numbers.economy growing? won't last.obama visiting disaster areas? photo op.

God news?

You mean, you actually believe the funny numbers?

When the dollar crashes -- probably next year -- you'll be staggering from one famous photo op to another....

trying to rationalize the news...

When you finally figure it out -- that it's all just a tapestry of media lies -- it's anybody's guess what you'll do...

snap out of your denial -- or jump out of a window.

MHG

houghtam
11-11-2013, 05:00 PM
God news?

You mean, you actually believe the funny numbers?

When the dollar crashes -- probably next year -- you'll be staggering from one famous photo op to another....

trying to rationalize the news...

When you finally figure it out -- that it's all just a tapestry of media lies -- it's anybody's guess what you'll do...

snap out of your denial -- or jump out of a window.

MHG

Always just around the corner.

So when it doesn't crash next year, what will your excuse be this time?

Fedaykin
11-11-2013, 09:40 PM
For those interested, the owner's testimonial from the latest incident:



http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-owner-tennessee

This whole thing is lots of hubub over nothing as far as I can tell.
The way it's being reported by the anti EV ninnies you'd think the thing erupted into a firestorm after hitting a pothole.

Three fires after the vehicle in question took major damage from either extra-ordinary road debris (large chunks of metal capable of piercing 3" holes or worse in 1/4" armor plating) or drunken idiots smashing through concrete barriers and into trees @ 100MPH.

This latest incident is actually a testimony of the safety features of the Tesla. Sounds like the object that was hit was a receiver/hitch assembly off a truck (either a light truck like a f-150 or perhaps an 18 wheeler). Something like this, but with the ball/mount actually installed:

http://www.pickupspecialties.com/BW_Hitches/16k-reciever-hitch.jpg

or perhaps "just" a 3 ball mount assembly (the description is vague):

http://www.sdtrucksprings.com/images/tow-n-stow-ball-mount.jpg

The driver says the impact actually made him come off the ground. In many cases, such an impact would likely cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle. But, because the the design of the Tesla (in particular, the extremely low center of gravity, traction control without the issues inherent in having to have differentials, etc.) it seems the driver (according his his testimony) had no problem maintaining control of the vehicle and didn't even realize the severity of the damage.

And then, of course, the car continued to function and was telling him something was wrong and that he needed to get off the road. How the hell cool is that?

Also, as pointed out, in a normal car the passenger compartment is not projected from similar road debris by a 1/4" armor plate. You're lucky if you get sheet metal between you and the road surface inches away.


So the question is, which would you rather have happen in the highly unlikely event you are in a similar accident:

* A punctured battery resulting in a small, easily avoided fire in a car that allows you to maintain control of the vehicle and get to safety.
* No punctured battery, no fire but a catastrophic loss of control and/or function of the vehicle at highway speeds?

cutthemdown
11-12-2013, 08:05 AM
There are thousands of Teslas on the road in the US. Last quarter sales alone were around 5,500. Only three have caught fire, and none due to mechanical failure.

How about those ICE cars?



That means around 85,800 gas-powered cars in the USA caught fire every year between 2008-2010 WITHOUT HITTING ANYTHING.

You sure you want to continue with this debate?

Yeah I do.

cutthemdown
11-12-2013, 08:11 AM
you can only compare brand new car fires to the Tesla as comparing it to cars that have beeen on the road for 15 yrs held together by ducktape and spit. How many new cars catch fire after small accidents compared to the Tesla. I talked to a friend in the business and he said 3 fires no big deal, but 3 fires on new cars, that only 5000 have hit the road, yeah its a problem.

mercedes sells about what 100 thousand cars a yr. So they would have to have like 60 brand new cars or more burst into flames after crashes. So dishonest to try and compare Teslas, just on the road, brand ****ing new, to car fires of regular cars. Nope has to be compared to brand new cars less then 2 yrs old.

houghtam
11-12-2013, 09:23 AM
you can only compare brand new car fires to the Tesla as comparing it to cars that have beeen on the road for 15 yrs held together by ducktape and spit. How many new cars catch fire after small accidents compared to the Tesla. I talked to a friend in the business and he said 3 fires no big deal, but 3 fires on new cars, that only 5000 have hit the road, yeah its a problem.

mercedes sells about what 100 thousand cars a yr. So they would have to have like 60 brand new cars or more burst into flames after crashes. So dishonest to try and compare Teslas, just on the road, brand ****ing new, to car fires of regular cars. Nope has to be compared to brand new cars less then 2 yrs old.

Well I talked to a friend in the business and he said your friend had no clue what he's talking about, so...there we are.

Hooray for anecdotes and dumb arguments.

Fedaykin
11-12-2013, 10:46 AM
you can only compare brand new car fires to the Tesla as comparing it to cars that have beeen on the road for 15 yrs held together by ducktape and spit. How many new cars catch fire after small accidents compared to the Tesla. I talked to a friend in the business and he said 3 fires no big deal, but 3 fires on new cars, that only 5000 have hit the road, yeah its a problem.

mercedes sells about what 100 thousand cars a yr. So they would have to have like 60 brand new cars or more burst into flames after crashes. So dishonest to try and compare Teslas, just on the road, brand ****ing new, to car fires of regular cars. Nope has to be compared to brand new cars less then 2 yrs old.

The dishonesty is saying these are "small accidents". They are accidents that result from the vehicle impacting large road debris at highway speed (or concrete barriers at race speeds). The fact that the vehicles sustain that type of impact and damage and there is no associated loss of control or immediate loss of function in the vehicle is actually quite impressive.

Like I said, the anti-EV ninnies want to frame this as Tesla's spontaneously erupting in flames for no good reason, and you're a perfect example of such idiocy.

The real comparison is overall outcome of various cars under similar circumstances. How to various cars handle impacting a 75lb chunk of steel @ 75PMH, or crashing through concrete barriers @ 100MPH? How many injuries and/or deaths in similar accidents?

cutthemdown
11-12-2013, 11:58 AM
I've been in some bad accidents never any fires. We deal with auto crashes about 100 times a yr at the office. In all that time. 0 fires.

cutthemdown
11-12-2013, 12:00 PM
On got rear ended 75 mph, neither car burst into flames. Very rare for that to happen. Thats why since Telsas haven't even had many crashes yet this amount is alarming. Obviously the libs always say nothing to see here. We will see but stock and sales will take some hits.

cutthemdown
11-12-2013, 12:04 PM
It's not the technology anyways they just wanted to lower the cars gravity so they put battery low to the ground. Turns out the protection down there although a lot, not enough. Plain and simple they are going to have do something about it because its not safe when in a collision. The NTSB is already looking into it. Not like it can't be fixed most likely.

houghtam
11-12-2013, 12:41 PM
Cut, I don't think you're supposed to be reading the files while you're filing then away. That's not an efficient way to be a file clerk.

Rohirrim
11-12-2013, 01:31 PM
On got rear ended 75 mph, neither car burst into flames. Very rare for that to happen. Thats why since Telsas haven't even had many crashes yet this amount is alarming. Obviously the libs always say nothing to see here. We will see but stock and sales will take some hits.

So, alternative energy is now a "liberal" plot? :rofl:

The Lone Bolt
11-12-2013, 02:58 PM
you can only compare brand new car fires to the Tesla as comparing it to cars that have beeen on the road for 15 yrs held together by ducktape and spit. How many new cars catch fire after small accidents compared to the Tesla. I talked to a friend in the business and he said 3 fires no big deal, but 3 fires on new cars, that only 5000 have hit the road, yeah its a problem.

Your numbers are a bit off. 5,500 is only last quarter sales. Last year Tesla sold 2,500 and this year, although current sales numbers aren't available, Tesla report they are on track to sell 21,000 by the end of the year (which is only about 7 weeks away). That means there are around 20,000 Model Ss on the road, not 5,000.

mercedes sells about what 100 thousand cars a yr. So they would have to have like 60 brand new cars or more burst into flames after crashes. So dishonest to try and compare Teslas, just on the road, brand ****ing new, to car fires of regular cars. Nope has to be compared to brand new cars less then 2 yrs old.

Bull. Just because a car is over 2 years old doesn't mean it's a clunker held together by "duct tape and spit." My 2001 PT Cruiser looks and drives like new, is well maintained, and dealer-serviced. Sure maybe some of the fires were due to poorly maintained older cars, but it's "dishonest" to claim I'm comparing new Teslas exclusively to old crapmobiles.

BTW, did you bother to tell your "friend in the business" that one of the Teslas plowed through a cement wall at 100 MPH and hit a tree before catching fire? Did you mention that the other two struck large metal objects at highway speeds before catching fire? Did you mention that there were not only no fatalities there were no major injuries to any of the drivers (or anybody else for that matter)?

cutthemdown
11-12-2013, 06:29 PM
Yeah he said no car should catch fire from hitting something in the road. If GM put a car out that did it would have already been recalled.

cutthemdown
11-12-2013, 06:30 PM
This guy does all the lemon law cases for Toyota. He knows his stuff when it comes to auto recalls, the NTSB, and when and what makes the govt move on it.

Right now Tesla to small to care about some fires until someone dies.

The Lone Bolt
11-12-2013, 08:25 PM
Yeah he said no car should catch fire from hitting something in the road. If GM put a car out that did it would have already been recalled.

Really?


SEGUIN — A patrol car burst into flames after striking an object in the road Thursday afternoon.

http://seguingazette.com/news/article_b24f9222-b0fb-11e1-bdef-0019bb2963f4.html

Look, I'll grant you that Tesla should look into these incidents and try to make the car safer. But out of about 20,000 Model Ss on the road today, none have caught fire due to mechanical problems. Alternately about 90,000 ICE cars do every year, and I'm sure they're not all clunkers. I think it's ludicrous to assume the Model S is less safe than ICE cars.

Fedaykin
11-12-2013, 09:57 PM
Yeah he said no car should catch fire from hitting something in the road. If GM put a car out that did it would have already been recalled.

total bull****. they certainly do.

cutthemdown
11-13-2013, 02:26 AM
LOL a drive shaft. Also it was the oil that leaked and ignited from the oil pan. We are talking about the fuel, the battery that powers the car, way different. A gas tank exploding would be more comparable.

cutthemdown
11-13-2013, 02:26 AM
We are talking about the design the power system, not the fact if oil somehow leaks onto hot objects it catches fire.

cutthemdown
11-13-2013, 02:27 AM
Electric carbatteries can't be places where Tesla placed it. Would you put the gas tank under the car in the front?

cutthemdown
11-13-2013, 02:27 AM
It's a design flaw and Musk refuses to fix it. They put the battery there because without doing it the car does not handle well.

cutthemdown
11-13-2013, 02:28 AM
Not saying electric cars aren't a good idea. Just saying that patting Obama on the back like his loan made it happen for Tesla, and Tesla is paving the way for American cars isn't accurate. The car was obviously produced too fast.

cutthemdown
11-13-2013, 02:29 AM
I still think 20 yrs from now though it will by hydrogen fuel cells because electrcity too expensive to produce and store in batteries.

Fedaykin
11-13-2013, 03:07 AM
LOL a drive shaft. Also it was the oil that leaked and ignited from the oil pan. We are talking about the fuel, the battery that powers the car, way different. A gas tank exploding would be more comparable.

Piss poor attempt to move the goal posts.

Doesn't matter if it's the petrol, the oil, the transmission fluid, or any other component. Both EVS and ICE are vulnerable to fire after severe damage cause by a high energy impact with significant road debris.

When you're carrying around dense energy sources, sometimes those energy sources release in uncontrolled ways, especially after damage is incurred.

Go figure.

Pony Boy
11-13-2013, 06:34 AM
Does anyone on the OM own a Tesla or are you planning to buy one?

Rohirrim
11-13-2013, 06:39 AM
Does anyone on the OM own a Tesla or are you planning to buy one?

I plan on retiring to an island and driving a golf cart. Do they make golf carts?

Pony Boy
11-13-2013, 07:28 AM
I plan on retiring to an island and driving a golf cart. Do they make golf carts?

Lot's of people where I live drive golf carts from their house to the lake or marina. All the bass boats have large battery powered trolling motors, I guess we are way ahead of the curve.

The Lone Bolt
11-13-2013, 11:07 AM
It's a design flaw and Musk refuses to fix it. They put the battery there because without doing it the car does not handle well.


Both unsubstantiated assertions. You don't know how well the Model S handles w/o the pack in that location and Musk hasn't indicated that there will be no improvements in future Tesla designs to better protect against road debris.

BroncoBeavis
11-13-2013, 01:08 PM
Had a family member hit a deer once. Not a major collision from what they said.

But the car went completely up in flames within only a few minutes. Nobody could really explain it. **** just happens sometimes.

Fedaykin
11-13-2013, 10:30 PM
Had a family member hit a deer once. Not a major collision from what they said.

But the car went completely up in flames within only a few minutes. Nobody could really explain it. **** just happens sometimes.

With the amount of energy combined with highly flammable liquids and current sources, it's amazing how FEW car fires there are. All it takes is a small leak in any of hundreds of things that contain or carry highly flammable liquids near an exhaust component and poof, you have a fire.

Tesla has added a new source of fire hazard, and removed several (no gas, no oil, no transmission fluid, no steering fluid, no high temp exhaust components, better location for everything else such as brake fluids, etc.).

Think about it this way. You might have a higher chance of fire in the event of a major accident (such as has happened in these cases), but at least your car won't catch on fire just because you parked over some dry leaves...

Also, in the event you do get a fire after a crash, you're a lot better off with slow, well contained battery fire than a fast, unconstrained gas or oil fire.

Fedaykin
11-13-2013, 10:37 PM
Does anyone on the OM own a Tesla or are you planning to buy one?

I'm planning to buy their non luxury offerings that they say they are going to build, assuming they are the best available option at that time.

I'd rather not waste money on a luxury vehicle, no matter what the power train is comprised of.

broncocalijohn
11-14-2013, 07:47 AM
you can only compare brand new car fires to the Tesla as comparing it to cars that have beeen on the road for 15 yrs held together by ducktape and spit. How many new cars catch fire after small accidents compared to the Tesla. I talked to a friend in the business and he said 3 fires no big deal, but 3 fires on new cars, that only 5000 have hit the road, yeah its a problem.

mercedes sells about what 100 thousand cars a yr. So they would have to have like 60 brand new cars or more burst into flames after crashes. So dishonest to try and compare Teslas, just on the road, brand ****ing new, to car fires of regular cars. Nope has to be compared to brand new cars less then 2 yrs old.

I am one of those statistics. I had a 2001 Corolla last December when the engine caught on fire and finally my 325k car bit the dust.

The Lone Bolt
11-14-2013, 09:27 PM
Not saying electric cars aren't a good idea. Just saying that patting Obama on the back like his loan made it happen for Tesla, and Tesla is paving the way for American cars isn't accurate. The car was obviously produced too fast.

First of all, even Bub Lutz credited Tesla for lighting a fire under GMs ass to produce EVs. And other major automaker have followed. Really, the only major auto maker that can claim they weren't prodded into EV manufacturing by Tesla is Nissan, who were working on EVs years before the Tesla Roadster.

But more to the point: Tesla paid off its government loan in full. So why do you care?

BroncoBeavis
11-14-2013, 10:10 PM
First of all, even Bub Lutz credited Tesla for lighting a fire under GMs ass to produce EVs. And other major automaker have followed. Really, the only major auto maker that can claim they weren't prodded into EV manufacturing by Tesla is Nissan, who were working on EVs years before the Tesla Roadster.

But more to the point: Tesla paid off its government loan in full. So why do you care?

GM produced an EV long before Tesla was born.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/how-does-gms-fabled-ev1-stack-up-against-the-current-crop-of-electrics/

Funny thing is, the technology hasn't improved all that much. Just the consumer culture around it.

Fedaykin
11-15-2013, 03:43 AM
GM produced an EV long before Tesla was born.

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/how-does-gms-fabled-ev1-stack-up-against-the-current-crop-of-electrics/

Funny thing is, the technology hasn't improved all that much. Just the consumer culture around it.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Look at all this lack of improvement:

Range:

EV1: 90mi (gm est)
Model S: 300Mi (tesla est)

Horsepower:

EV1: 137 (equivalent large I-4 or very small V6)
Model S: 416 (equivalent to a small block 5L V8 in modern mustangs, etc.)

Torque (at all RPM)
EV1: 110 (not great, though still beats much larger 'speced' ICEs due to nature of EV)
Model S: 443 ft*lb (beats even high end stock sports cars like the Shelby GT 500 or Corvette Stringray due to flat torque curve)

0-60
EV1: 9 seconds (typical of economy type cars)
Model S: 4.2 seconds (typical of high end consumer sports cars)

Charging Time (110 volt)

EV1: 6 miles of range per hour of charging
Model S: 30 miles of range per hour of charging

Charging Time (240 volt and/or dual charging)

EV1: 30 miles of range per hour of charging
Model S: 60 miles of range per hour of charging

Charging Time (specialized chargers)

EV1: 30 miles of range per hour of charging
Model S: 200 miles of range in 1/2 hour

Seating capacity:
EV1: 2
Model S: 5 (std sedan) or 7 (with use of rear seats)

Style:
EV1: style compromised for efficiency
Model S: equivalent to ICE cars (i.e. no style compromised by efficiency needs)

houghtam
11-15-2013, 05:52 AM
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Look at all this lack of improvement:

Range:

EV1: 90mi (gm est)
Model S: 300Mi (tesla est)

Horsepower:

EV1: 137 (equivalent large I-4 or very small V6)
Model S: 416 (equivalent to a small block 5L V8 in modern mustangs, etc.)

Torque (at all RPM)
EV1: 110 (not great, though still beats much larger 'speced' ICEs due to nature of EV)
Model S: 443 ft*lb (beats even high end stock sports cars like the Shelby GT 500 or Corvette Stringray due to flat torque curve)

0-60
EV1: 9 seconds (typical of economy type cars)
Model S: 4.2 seconds (typical of high end consumer sports cars)

Charging Time (110 volt)

EV1: 6 miles of range per hour of charging
Model S: 30 miles of range per hour of charging

Charging Time (240 volt and/or dual charging)

EV1: 30 miles of range per hour of charging
Model S: 60 miles of range per hour of charging

Charging Time (specialized chargers)

EV1: 30 miles of range per hour of charging
Model S: 200 miles of range in 1/2 hour

Seating capacity:
EV1: 2
Model S: 5 (std sedan) or 7 (with use of rear seats)

Style:
EV1: style compromised for efficiency
Model S: equivalent to ICE cars (i.e. no style compromised by efficiency needs)

Yeah but you still have to charge them during those long periods at night...like, say, from midnight to 8am, where people are at their busiest.

Hilarious!

BroncoBeavis
11-15-2013, 06:09 AM
:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Look at all this lack of improvement:

Range:

EV1: 90mi (gm est)
Model S: 300Mi (tesla est)

Horsepower:

EV1: 137 (equivalent large I-4 or very small V6)
Model S: 416 (equivalent to a small block 5L V8 in modern mustangs, etc.)

Torque (at all RPM)
EV1: 110 (not great, though still beats much larger 'speced' ICEs due to nature of EV)
Model S: 443 ft*lb (beats even high end stock sports cars like the Shelby GT 500 or Corvette Stringray due to flat torque curve)

0-60
EV1: 9 seconds (typical of economy type cars)
Model S: 4.2 seconds (typical of high end consumer sports cars)

Charging Time (110 volt)

EV1: 6 miles of range per hour of charging
Model S: 30 miles of range per hour of charging

Charging Time (240 volt and/or dual charging)

EV1: 30 miles of range per hour of charging
Model S: 60 miles of range per hour of charging

Charging Time (specialized chargers)

EV1: 30 miles of range per hour of charging
Model S: 200 miles of range in 1/2 hour

Seating capacity:
EV1: 2
Model S: 5 (std sedan) or 7 (with use of rear seats)

Style:
EV1: style compromised for efficiency
Model S: equivalent to ICE cars (i.e. no style compromised by efficiency needs)

Hey yeah. Let's compare the very first generation Lead Acid EV1 to the very latest Tesla performance package that costs twice as much. LOL

EV1 was designed to be economical. An attempt for the masses. If they wanted to make a 6-figure car, range and performance could've been substantially enhanced. And Li-ion could've been used. But it would've priced it up into the Tesla's 1%ers bracket.

That's why the comparison to the Leaf is more apt. But the jump back to the Gen 1 EV1 is comical.

Fedaykin
11-15-2013, 06:48 AM
Hey yeah. Let's compare the very first generation Lead Acid EV1 to the very latest Tesla performance package that costs twice as much. LOL

You're the idiot that said the tech hasn't improved very much. Clearly, it has, despite your weasily nature trying to back away from that statement now. Or are you going to attempt to claim that changing to far superior battery technology (the thing that has the most impact on range and 'refuel time') is not a technological improvement?

Also, the EV GenII+ refit was only a modest improvement in range (140mi max) due to retrofits with NiMH batteries with the same low performance motor. The Original GenII (Lead-acid) was essentially the same range.


EV1 was designed to be economical. An attempt for the masses. If they wanted to make a 6-figure car, range and performance could've been substantially enhanced. And Li-ion could've been used. But it would've priced it up into the Tesla's 1%ers bracket.


The price difference isn't as much as you want to claim. They never actually sold EV1s (lease only), but the price tossed around as an MSRP was $34,000, or around $51,000 in today's dollar. The least rates (in today's dollars, were) $600-820, which is certainly not a "economy car" type lease obligation.

Add in the Tesla Model S is a luxury class vehicle akin to a BMW commanding a premium price, and the price difference comparing apples to apples (instead of econo-box type cars to luxury vehicles) is narrowed a lot more.

Tesla is already planning a non-luxury line by 2015, which they claim will go for around $30,000.


That's why the comparison to the Leaf is more apt. But the jump back to the Gen 1 EV1 is comical.

The Leaf is a half assed attempt designed not with the idea to make a good EV, but to zero emissions requirements. Tesla has shown what is actually possible with EVs, because they are actually trying.

But go ahead and keep trying to claim a vehicle that can be charged 10 times faster (with optimal equipment), has 3x the range per change, and has the performance of a sports car isn't that big of an improvement. As always, your gumby impressions are quite hilarious to watch.

BroncoBeavis
11-15-2013, 07:39 AM
The price difference isn't as much as you want to claim. They never actually sold EV1s (lease only), but the price tossed around as an MSRP was $34,000, or around $51,000 in today's dollar. The least rates (in today's dollars, were) $600-820, which is certainly not a "economy car" type lease obligation.

But go ahead and keep trying to claim a vehicle that can be charged 10 times faster (with optimal equipment), has 3x the range per change, and has the performance of a sports car isn't that big of an improvement. As always, your gumby impressions are quite hilarious to watch.

1999 Gen 2 EV1 NiMH - $48,000 in 2013 dollars, 140 mi range
2013 Tesla S 60-kwh Base - $71,000 in 2013 dollars, 208 mi range

Do the math. The percentage in range change is almost identical to the percentage price difference. Yet you laugh off the price difference as insignificant. LOL

Fedaykin
11-15-2013, 08:38 AM
1999 Gen 2 EV1 NiMH - $48,000 in 2013 dollars, 140 mi range
2013 Tesla S 60-kwh Base - $71,000 in 2013 dollars, 208 mi range

Do the math. The percentage in range change is almost identical to the percentage price difference. Yet you laugh off the price difference as insignificant. LOL

You're comparing apples to oranges. The EV1 was NOT a luxury class vehicle, it was an economy class.

Here's some highlights off the standard list of features for a model S (71k starting)

Sports car performance (even the base model has 302hp, 317t which is better than many sports cars starting options, especially with a flat torque curve ), electronic stability control, traction control, 12 way seats, premium seating, premium stereo system, 17" touchscreen, bluetooth, premium media center, driver seat detection, HD backup camera, premium climate control, wifi integration, alarm with immobilizer system, all glass panoramic moonroof, auto retracting door handles, automatic temperature control (3 zone) things that only come standard on luxury cars ( wheel mounted controls, rain sensing wipers, etc.)

But even if you want to look at just powertrain, trying to compare just range is idiotic. It's relatively easy to make a low performance, high range car, or a high performance, low range car. The EV1 was a low performance, moderate range car. The Model S (even the base) is an high performance, high range car. Add in the vastly improved recharge options of the Model S, and you have the full trifecta of EV qualities that are all considerably improved.

But, idiotic takes seem to be your forte, so I'm not surprised.

BroncoBeavis
11-15-2013, 08:46 AM
You're comparing apples to oranges. The EV1 was NOT a luxury class vehicle, it was an economy class.

Here's some highlights off the standard list of features for a model S (71k starting)

Sports car performance (even the base model has 302hp, 317t which is better than many sports cars starting options, especially with a flat torque curve ), electronic stability control, traction control, 12 way seats, premium seating, premium stereo system, 17" touchscreen, bluetooth, premium media center, driver seat detection, HD backup camera, premium climate control, wifi integration, alarm with immobilizer system, all glass panoramic moonroof, auto retracting door handles, automatic temperature control (3 zone) things that only come standard on luxury cars ( wheel mounted controls, rain sensing wipers, etc.)

But even if you want to look at just powertrain, trying to compare just range is idiotic. It's relatively easy to make a low performance, high range car, or a high performance, low range car. The EV1 was a low performance, moderate range car. The Model S (even the base) is an high performance, high range car.

But, idiotic takes seem to be your forte, so I'm not surprised.

Electric motors are very efficient. It's not like a gas engine where performance has a huge impact on mileage. X number of kilowatt hours will take you pretty close to a certain number of miles. Regardless of how fast you drive it. At least in comparison to a traditional gas engine.

The EV1 was built on cost consideration first, and performance second. They could've significantly improved performance and range with a 50% increase in cost. That's just not the market they were in. Which is why comparisons to the Leaf are much more reasonable. Every criticism you have of EV1 could be said of the Leaf in comparison to Tesla. It's not that Nissan doesn't know what they're doing. It's that they're designing a completely different car for a completely different segment of the population (the Average Middle Classers you claim to love so much)

To be honest, the luxury market segment is fun and all, but it's insignificant. It does nothing to change the dynamics or footprint of the US auto fleet.

Fedaykin
11-15-2013, 09:05 AM
Electric motors are very efficient. It's not like a gas engine where performance has a huge impact on mileage. X number of kilowatt hours will take you pretty close to a certain number of miles. Regardless of how fast you drive it. At least in comparison to a traditional gas engine.


Delivering nearly 4x the power to the wheels is still delivering 4x the power to the wheels, regardless of efficiency. An EM certainly is easier to scale because of its efficiency, but you don't magically get 4x the power without a battery that can store and deliver 4x the power. There's this thing called physics you might have heard of...

The Model S goes 3 times the distance/charge delivering 4x the power of the motor. That represents a huge improvement. Vastly outperforming any improvement in range or power delivered by ICE.

See: difference between a mature technology butting up against absolute, theoretical limits of the technology (IC engines) and technology still in its infancy relatively (batteries).


The EV1 was built on cost consideration first, and performance second. They could've significantly improved performance and range with a 50% increase in cost. That's just not the market they were in. Which is why comparisons to the Leaf are much more reasonable. Every criticism you have of EV1 could be said of the Leaf in comparison to Tesla. It's not that Nissan doesn't know what they're doing. It's that they're designing a completely different car for a completely different segment of the population (the Average Middle Classers you claim to love so much)


Now you're just in a repeat loop. As I've show, the cost differences are significantly part of the Model S being a luxury vehicle rather than a mainstream vehicle or an economy vehicle. Tesla is targeting a $30k mainstream model, and just ripping out all the luxury features gets them down to $50-55k easily (same cost as the EV1). From there can can tune performance vs range however they see fit.

Also, your 50% increase in cost put into to range and power puts the EV1 them at the price of a Model S, without all the luxury features of the Model S...

If you pull your head out of your ass for once, you'll be able to see.


To be honest, the luxury market segment is fun and all, but it's insignificant. It does nothing to change the dynamics or footprint of the US auto fleet.

Hitting the luxury market first is a strategic move. It allows Tesla to better fund R&D by selling a high margin vehicle.

BroncoBeavis
11-15-2013, 09:08 AM
Delivering nearly 4x the power to the wheels is still delivering 4x the power to the wheels, regardless of efficiency. An EM certainly is easier to scale because of its efficiency, but you don't magically get 4x the power without a battery that can store and deliver 4x the power. There's this thing called physics you might have heard of...

The Model S goes 3 times the distance/charge delivering 4x the power of the motor. That represents a huge improvement. Vastly outperforming any improvement in range or power delivered by ICE.

See: difference between a mature technology butting up against absolute, theoretical limits of the technology (IC engines) and technology still in its infancy relatively (batteries).



Now you're just in a repeat loop. As I've show, the cost differences are significantly part of the Model S being a luxury vehicle rather than a mainstream vehicle or an economy vehicle. Tesla is targeting a $30k mainstream model, and just ripping out all the luxury features gets them down to $50-55k easily (same cost as the EV1). From there can can tune performance vs range however they see fit.

Also, your 50% increase in cost put into to range and power puts the EV1 them at the price of a Model S, without all the luxury features of the Model S...

If you pull your head out of your ass for once, you'll be able to see.



Hitting the luxury market first is a strategic move. It allows Tesla to better fund R&D by selling a high margin vehicle.

Yeah, I read an article about one model Tesla was thinking about in the $40k price range. It had a range of 160. REVOLUTIONARY! LOL

At the end of the day, they decided the value segment wasn't for them (yet)

Fedaykin
11-15-2013, 09:10 AM
Yeah, I read an article about one model Tesla was thinking about in the $40k price range. It had a range of 160. REVOLUTIONARY! LOL

At the end of the day, they decided the value segment wasn't for them (yet)

Ahh yes, the eternally obtuse BB. I've already corrected your idiocy of only considering range, and here you go again, only considering range.

Your rectal cavity must be very comfortable for you love having your head up there so much.

BroncoBeavis
11-15-2013, 09:16 AM
Ahh yes, the eternally obtuse BB. I've already corrected your idiocy of only considering range, and here you go again, only considering range.

Your rectal cavity must be very comfortable for you love having your head up there so much.

Range is THE most important shortcoming of EV's

I know you think an expensive luxury car that screams like a sports car but basically can't leave the metro area is where it's at.

But there's no significant market for that. Outside of this set:

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/mxuwXczWQC0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And I've got nothing against Tesla. They know they're a niche player. They're hoping for more. It'd be great if they came up with something revolutionary. But they've got some major physics to overcome.

Fedaykin
11-15-2013, 09:24 AM
Range is THE most important shortcoming of EV's

I know you think an expensive luxury car that screams like a sports car but basically can't leave the metro area is where it's at.

But there's no significant market for that. Outside of this set:

No, recharge time is the biggest issue. Even if your unsubstantiated claim of what Tesla's mainstream offering will be is true, 160mi is perfectly fine if the recharge time is short enough. Plenty of gas vehicles that won't go more than ~200mi on a tank. And of course, only a small minority of cars are driven regularly more than 50mi per day as it is.

And stop with the straw man bull****. I have never claimed that the Model S is the answer or has a significant market. It DOES, however, represent a significant technological improvement over the EV1.

BroncoBeavis
11-15-2013, 09:46 AM
No, recharge time is the biggest issue. Even if your unsubstantiated claim of what Tesla's mainstream offering will be is true, 160mi is perfectly fine if the recharge time is short enough. Plenty of gas vehicles that won't go more than ~200mi on a tank. And of course, only a small minority of cars are driven regularly more than 50mi per day as it is.

Are you kidding? Name me the modern passenger vehicle that goes less than 200 miles on a tank. I'll be waiting.

From what I've heard Tesla's shooting for 200 miles in a 40k vehicle in a few years. When they previously though about releasing a car in this segment, 160 was the best they thought they could do. And they decided this wasn't good enough to bother with.

And stop with the straw man bull****. I have never claimed that the Model S is the answer or has a significant market. It DOES, however, represent a significant technological improvement over the EV1.

The fact that Tesla can't enter the same segment with significantly better range, argues against you. Nobody knows what GM could've done in the luxury segment, because they never tried.

As we've been over before Tesla's real limitation is Battery tech. Electric motors aren't significantly more efficient than they were. Battery tech just hasn't changed all that much. Except in price. The biggest difference between EV1 and Tesla is what a 50% higher price tag can buy you.

And I'm not saying there's been no improvement. Just that it's not market-changing improvement. Especially when you can get 50mpg in sub $20k vehicles out in the real world.

There's something that was truly beyond imagination in 1999.

cutthemdown
11-21-2013, 05:22 AM
This won't be the technology that wins out. It will be hydrogen fuel cells powering an electric motor. Why? You can power up your car in 3-5 minutes and go for over 300 miles. In 15 yrs technology like lithium ion batteries charged by plugging into something will be obsolete.

cutthemdown
11-21-2013, 05:23 AM
http://nysebigstage.com/articles/toyota-brings-hydrogen-cars-to-production?cid=p_outbrain

Fedaykin
11-21-2013, 07:43 AM
This won't be the technology that wins out. It will be hydrogen fuel cells powering an electric motor. Why? You can power up your car in 3-5 minutes and go for over 300 miles. In 15 yrs technology like lithium ion batteries charged by plugging into something will be obsolete.

The problem, cutlet, is that non fossil fuel derived hydrogen is only an energy store, not and energy source. It's a "battery".

95% of all the hydrogen produced is derived from natural gas via steam reformation. You can produce hydrogen from electricity + water (electrolysis), but you still need a power source, and the conversion is not efficient. There are other, somehwhat experimental ways to produce hydrogen (i.e. biologically) but they are a LONG, LONG way from being viable.

As always, it's all in the math:


Pure EV, assuming a very modern power plant:

Natural gas power plant: 60% efficient
Electrical transmission from plant to home/recharge station: 93% efficient -- higher in places with better infrastructure or closer to the power station
Battery charging: 80% efficient (a low end estimate of practical lithium ion battery charging, which starts at around 99% and then drops to 0 at full charge. Typical overall efficiency is between 80-90%.)
Net efficiency: .6*.93*.80 = 45% (low ball estimate)


HFC Car with hydrogen derived from electrolysis from the same plant:

Natural gas power plant: 60% efficient
Electrolysis next door to power plant: 65% efficient (this is about the best you can get in a lab, so I'm being generous)
Hydrogen fuel cell: 80% efficient (again being generous - they've gotten over 90% in a lab with the very best (and most expensive) materials like platinum, but anything over 50% commercially is good)
Net efficiency: .6*.65*.8 = 31% (high ball estimate)


HFC Car with hydrogen extracted directly from natural gas via steam reformation:

Steam Reformation (Natural Gas -> CO2): 80% efficient
Hydrogen fuel cell: 75% efficient (again being generous - they've gotten over 90% in a lab, but anything over 50% commercially is good)
Net efficiency: 0.8*0.75 = 60%

Gasoline engine: ~30% efficient


In other words, hydrogen derived by electrolysis powered by a natural gas plant is only about as "efficient" as a gas powered vehicle. And, if you want to extract the hydrogen from the natural gas directly via steam reformation, you end up with the same level of efficiency as just burning the natural gas in the car. Ultimately, you're better off with a natural gas powered vehicle than in trying to use hydrogen fuel cells. Same efficiency, much, much less complication and cost.


This is why EVs are more interesting. Even ultimately using fossil fuels as the power source, they do so at more efficiently than a gas or hydrogen powered car. Depending on the details, a hydrogen powered car might actually be LESS efficient than an ICE. My above calculations assume very high efficiency out of the HCF efficiency chain (electrolysis and the HFC itself). Likely "real world" efficiency will be less since they will have to be using cheaper material and cheaper processes.

You can, of course, use solar or wind or other non fossil fuel to produce the electricity for the electrolysis, but then it makes no sense whatsoever (from an efficiency stand point) to use HFCs instead. Why convert that electricity to hydrogen at a further 50% loss of energy, when you can use it directly with only a 20% loss in a battery? It makes sense if the challenge of battery recharge time cannot be solved, but otherwise is just a pointless loss in efficiency

BroncoBeavis
11-21-2013, 08:24 AM
The problem, cutlet, is that non fossil fuel derived hydrogen is only an energy store, not and energy source. It's a "battery".

95% of all the hydrogen produced is derived from natural gas via steam reformation. You can produce hydrogen from electricity + water (electrolysis), but you still need a power source, and the conversion is not efficient. There are other, somehwhat experimental ways to produce hydrogen (i.e. biologically) but they are a LONG, LONG way from being viable.

As always, it's all in the math:


Pure EV, assuming a very modern power plant:

Natural gas power plant: 60% efficient
Electrical transmission from plant to home/recharge station: 93% efficient -- higher in places with better infrastructure or closer to the power station
Battery charging: 80% efficient (a low end estimate of practical lithium ion battery charging, which starts at around 99% and then drops to 0 at full charge. Typical overall efficiency is between 80-90%.)
Net efficiency: .6*.93*.80 = 45% (low ball estimate)


HFC Car with hydrogen derived from electrolysis from the same plant:

Natural gas power plant: 60% efficient
Electrolysis next door to power plant: 65% efficient (this is about the best you can get in a lab, so I'm being generous)
Hydrogen fuel cell: 80% efficient (again being generous - they've gotten over 90% in a lab with the very best (and most expensive) materials like platinum, but anything over 50% commercially is good)
Net efficiency: .6*.65*.8 = 31% (high ball estimate)


HFC Car with hydrogen extracted directly from natural gas via steam reformation:

Steam Reformation (Natural Gas -> CO2): 80% efficient
Hydrogen fuel cell: 75% efficient (again being generous - they've gotten over 90% in a lab, but anything over 50% commercially is good)
Net efficiency: 0.8*0.75 = 60%

Gasoline engine: ~30% efficient


In other words, hydrogen derived by electrolysis powered by a natural gas plant is only about as "efficient" as a gas powered vehicle. And, if you want to extract the hydrogen from the natural gas directly via steam reformation, you end up with the same level of efficiency as just burning the natural gas in the car. Ultimately, you're better off with a natural gas powered vehicle than in trying to use hydrogen fuel cells. Same efficiency, much, much less complication and cost.


This is why EVs are more interesting. Even ultimately using fossil fuels as the power source, they do so at more efficiently than a gas or hydrogen powered car. Depending on the details, a hydrogen powered car might actually be LESS efficient than an ICE. My above calculations assume very high efficiency out of the HCF efficiency chain (electrolysis and the HFC itself). Likely "real world" efficiency will be less since they will have to be using cheaper material and cheaper processes.

You can, of course, use solar or wind or other non fossil fuel to produce the electricity for the electrolysis, but then it makes no sense whatsoever (from an efficiency stand point) to use HFCs instead. Why convert that electricity to hydrogen at a further 50% loss of energy, when you can use it directly with only a 20% loss in a battery? It makes sense if the challenge of battery recharge time cannot be solved, but otherwise is just a pointless loss in efficiency

Not that there's a right answer to this Futurama argument, but the efficiency you're missing with fuel cells is in relative weight (an important advantage in transportation) vs massive banks of heavy metal batteries. When it comes to transportation, comparisons of efficiency can't be limited to only electrical. If an energy storage mechanism adds 30% to the weight of a vehicle, that is a huge drag on efficiency. Even though it doesn't show up when you're only looking at input efficiency.

The Lone Bolt
11-21-2013, 09:44 AM
Not that there's a right answer to this Futurama argument, but the efficiency you're missing with fuel cells is in relative weight (an important advantage in transportation) vs massive banks of heavy metal batteries. When it comes to transportation, comparisons of efficiency can't be limited to only electrical. If an energy storage mechanism adds 30% to the weight of a vehicle, that is a huge drag on efficiency. Even though it doesn't show up when you're only looking at input efficiency.

There are several lines of research that promise to make batteries smaller, lighter, and more energy dense. Lithium-air is one that comes to mind.

I wouldn't mind practical fuel cell vehicle succeeding in the marketplace, but I have serious doubts. First of all it's energy-inefficient to convert electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity. But the biggest obstacle is storage. Hydrogen atoms are so small they slip past any barrier. A fuel cell car will constantly lose fuel and if it's parked in an enclosed space, like a garage, leaked hydrogen could be dangerous.

I think fuels cells may make good range-extenders for EVs, but I don't see pure FC vehicles ever being practical.

Fedaykin
11-21-2013, 10:00 AM
Not that there's a right answer to this Futurama argument, but the efficiency you're missing with fuel cells is in relative weight (an important advantage in transportation) vs massive banks of heavy metal batteries. When it comes to transportation, comparisons of efficiency can't be limited to only electrical. If an energy storage mechanism adds 30% to the weight of a vehicle, that is a huge drag on efficiency. Even though it doesn't show up when you're only looking at input efficiency.

When you can figure out why your claims about the difference between the batteries in the EV1 and the batteries in the Model S are absurd, we can talk. I've given you all the information you need, and have even spelled it out directly for you, but you're either too obstinent or just that daft.

Ironically, battery weight and size is perhaps the biggest issue...

BroncoBeavis
11-21-2013, 10:09 AM
There are several lines of research that promise to make batteries smaller, lighter, and more energy dense. Lithium-air is one that comes to mind.

I wouldn't mind practical fuel cell vehicle succeeding in the marketplace, but I have serious doubts. First of all it's energy-inefficient to convert electricity to hydrogen and back to electricity. But the biggest obstacle is storage. Hydrogen atoms are so small they slip past any barrier. A fuel cell car will constantly lose fuel and if it's parked in an inclosed space, like a garage, leaked hydrogen could be dangerous.

I think fuels cells may make good range-extenders for EVs, but I don't see pure FC vehicles ever being practical.

What we end up with may utilize hydrogen but look nothing like modern fuel cells. Many people are working on easier ways to store hydrogen energy in non-liquid or gaseous forms. That may end up being the answer. None of it is a sure bet. But neither is Lithium-Air or any other proposed future energy storage tech.

In time, the answer will come. The only thing I'm reasonably sure of is that it won't come about because the federal government gave millionaires subsidies to drive $100,000 cars. :)

cutthemdown
11-21-2013, 11:58 AM
You can try and add up carbon footprint but I don't care. I care about the car having range and performing like we are used to. You can nitpick down to how much co2 does it take to rip lithium from the ground to make a battery but I don't care. I care mostly about convienence and cost when the time comes.

IMO the forced progression to these electrics is a joke. They won't last in this form and the cars aren't that good. The range, the power, or if they do have good range and power the cost. So a bunch of rich people are tooling around in Tesla's, big deal. Musk is like the richest guy around. If anyone doesn't need low interest govt loans its him. Obama passed out loans to donors, plain and simple.

Fedaykin
11-23-2013, 10:43 AM
You can try and add up carbon footprint but I don't care. I care about the car having range and performing like we are used to. You can nitpick down to how much co2 does it take to rip lithium from the ground to make a battery but I don't care. I care mostly about convienence and cost when the time comes.


A "solution" that does not address the desire (i.e. to reduce dependence on fossil fuels) is... not a solution. It's a lot better idea to stick with petrol instead of natural gas fossil fuel burning cars. Why in the world would we want to put car fuel in competition with the fuel used to heat homes? Makes no sense whatsoever.


IMO the forced progression to these electrics is a joke.


sh*t! I know. Just in the last couple weeks I've had to dodge no less than 3 Tesla goon squads that were trying to force me to buy a Tesla. The really weird part? They were all wearing Steve Jobs masks. I don't get that part...


They won't last in this form and the cars aren't that good. The range, the power, or if they do have good range and power the cost. So a bunch of rich people are tooling around in Tesla's, big deal. Musk is like the richest guy around. If anyone doesn't need low interest govt loans its him. Obama passed out loans to donors, plain and simple.

Tesla has shown its feasible to make a mainstream EV that has reasonable power, range and cost. Is the Model S that? No, it shows that such a vehicle is possible.

Despite BB's willful ignorance, battery tech has increased a lot since the EV1 days. A modern L-ION battery has about 5x the specific energy (energy per mass) and nearly 10x the energy density (energy per volume) of lead acid batteries. In other words, replace the EV1 battery with a Tesla Model S battery and the EV1 will go between 5x (if you replace by weight) and 10x (if you replace by volume) the distance per change, That's between 400 and 900mi/charge depending on what you replace by, mass or volume (compared to 90). And at an equivalent price.

When the EV1 got NiHM batteries, it's unclear if they replaced by mass or by volume (or by cost), but the result was 140mi/charge which is in the range of replacement by mass or volume compared to lead-acid. Using even the NiMH batteries of the EV1 Gen2+, a vehicle such as the Model S is entirely infeasible (at any cost). NiHM batteries do not have the specific energy or energy density required to even fit in a Model S platform.

As for cost, pointing at the Model S and saying "OMG, look how expensive EVs still are" is equivalent to pointing at a 2014 Corvette, BMW 7 series, or similar vehicle and saying "OMG, look how expensive ICEs are!" The Model S is a luxury/performance vehicle. To produce a mainstream vehicle, Tesla will reduce the overall performance (likely in the 200hp/200tq range or about 1/2 the power -- still a nicely powered vehicle equivalent to a 250-300 hp/tq ICE) and then trim battery size/cost preserving as much range as possible. Then it'll strip out however much of the luxury crap they feel they need to get to a "mainstream" price.

Oh, and speaking of expense. You did notice that even your own article says the "mainstream" Toyota HFC cars will "somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000". In other words, the "mainstream" Toyota will likely be just as expensive as the decidedly non-mainstream Model S.

houghtam
12-01-2013, 03:38 AM
http://defamer.gawker.com/fast-and-furious-star-paul-walker-died-today-in-a-car-c-1474219800?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook&utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Walker and another person were driving in a Porsche together when the driver lost control and hit a tree or light post, sending the car into flames and killing both passengers.

Huh. Tragic.

BroncoBeavis
12-02-2013, 08:05 AM
Despite BB's willful ignorance, battery tech has increased a lot since the EV1 days. A modern L-ION battery has about 5x the specific energy (energy per mass) and nearly 10x the energy density (energy per volume) of lead acid batteries. In other words, replace the EV1 battery with a Tesla Model S battery and the EV1 will go between 5x (if you replace by weight) and 10x (if you replace by volume) the distance per change, That's between 400 and 900mi/charge depending on what you replace by, mass or volume (compared to 90). And at an equivalent price.

Lithium-Ion existed in 1999. With most of the same advantages. Yes, it's gotten cheaper, as I already stated, but no, it's still not priced in line with NiMH, which is why all hybrids and low-cost EVs still use NiMH (or even Lead Acid). Tesla made a smart move getting into the luxury market, again, as I said before. The advantage is they can gain a real performance edge because of what the high price point allows them to do. But they're not changing the economics of transportation in that segment. Because their share is insignificant.

As for cost, pointing at the Model S and saying "OMG, look how expensive EVs still are" is equivalent to pointing at a 2014 Corvette, BMW 7 series, or similar vehicle and saying "OMG, look how expensive ICEs are!" The Model S is a luxury/performance vehicle. To produce a mainstream vehicle, Tesla will reduce the overall performance (likely in the 200hp/200tq range or about 1/2 the power -- still a nicely powered vehicle equivalent to a 250-300 hp/tq ICE) and then trim battery size/cost preserving as much range as possible. Then it'll strip out however much of the luxury crap they feel they need to get to a "mainstream" price.

Oh, and speaking of expense. You did notice that even your own article says the "mainstream" Toyota HFC cars will "somewhere between $50,000 and $100,000". In other words, the "mainstream" Toyota will likely be just as expensive as the decidedly non-mainstream Model S.

The Fuel Cell debate was about the future, not about today. Tesla's already admitted (by deciding against production) that they're not ready to produce a lower cost EV that can get adequate range to be marketable.

The context of the Fuel Cell/Battery debate was whether batteries are really the best bet on the future of transportation. Should we be subsidizing millionaires to drive status symbols while there's at least a clear possibility that Tesla's battery-based model ends up being a dead-end fork in the road?

BroncoBeavis
12-02-2013, 08:09 AM
A "solution" that does not address the desire (i.e. to reduce dependence on fossil fuels) is... not a solution. It's a lot better idea to stick with petrol instead of natural gas fossil fuel burning cars. Why in the world would we want to put car fuel in competition with the fuel used to heat homes? Makes no sense whatsoever.

Bad argument, considering how all that new Tesla juice is going to be produced at the end of the day. :)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703579804575441683910246338.html

Fedaykin
12-02-2013, 10:57 AM
Lithium-Ion existed in 1999. With most of the same advantages. Yes, it's gotten cheaper, as I already stated, but no, it's still not priced in line with NiMH, which is why all hybrids and low-cost EVs still use NiMH (or even Lead Acid). Tesla made a smart move getting into the luxury market, again, as I said before. The advantage is they can gain a real performance edge because of what the high price point allows them to do. But they're not changing the economics of transportation in that segment. Because their share is insignificant.


Translation: *plugs ears* lalala I can't hear you!

Like I've been saying, Tesla has proven that with L-ION batteries you can build an EV that is a suitable replacement (performance, range, recharge) to much of the gas powered car market. Something that is simply not possible with NiMH or Lead-Acid, at any price.


The Fuel Cell debate was about the future, not about today. Tesla's already admitted (by deciding against production) that they're not ready to produce a lower cost EV that can get adequate range to be marketable.


Tesla has not cancelled plans for a mainstream vehicle in the $30k range. And frankly, the way L-ION prices continue to drop, it's only a matter of time before *someone* achieves that goal.


The context of the Fuel Cell/Battery debate was whether batteries are really the best bet on the future of transportation. Should we be subsidizing millionaires to drive status symbols while there's at least a clear possibility that Tesla's battery-based model ends up being a dead-end fork in the road?

All investment has risk, and all technologies receive public subsidy at some point in their life. But it's quite silly (and massively hypocritical) to whine about the subsidy for EVs. Gas powered vehicles still enjoy massive subsidy in fuel prices. Trillions of dollars (and innumerable lives) have been spent in the last few decades alone to maintain oil supplies in addition to substantial tax breaks for oil companies and various other market manipulations used to keep the price of gas down as far as possible.

BroncoBeavis
12-02-2013, 12:24 PM
Translation: *plugs ears* lalala I can't hear you!

Like I've been saying, Tesla has proven that with L-ION batteries you can build an EV that is a suitable replacement (performance, range, recharge) to much of the gas powered car market. Something that is simply not possible with NiMH or Lead-Acid, at any price.

Nobody said it was. Again, what you're missing is that someone could've built an EV a decade ago using LiIon. It was viewed as too costly. And for the average Joe, it still is.

Nobody's saying Tesla's a bad company. I'm not rooting for them to go under. I just have an issue with paying a little extra every year so Leonardo DiCaprio can have an artificial discount on his 6-figure ride. :)

All investment has risk, and all technologies receive public subsidy at some point in their life. But it's quite silly (and massively hypocritical) to whine about the subsidy for EVs. Gas powered vehicles still enjoy massive subsidy in fuel prices. Trillions of dollars (and innumerable lives) have been spent in the last few decades alone to maintain oil supplies in addition to substantial tax breaks for oil companies and various other market manipulations used to keep the price of gas down as far as possible.

As I've said before. If battery technology has a breakthrough, it won't be because of Tesla. They're basically an end-consumer. If you want to throw some extra research funds at MIT, be my guest. That's far more likely to produce the results you're touting for Tesla.

And quit with the whole 'green' angle. In the real world, fossil fuels are going to supply the vast majority of Tesla's new electrical requirements. Resource acquisition is one of the primary functions of any society. Your selectively applying it as a "subsidy" is hilarious. Everything everywhere is "subsidized" using that logic.

Fedaykin
12-02-2013, 01:34 PM
Nobody said it was. Again, what you're missing is that someone could've built an EV a decade ago using LiIon. It was viewed as too costly. And for the average Joe, it still is.

Nobody's saying Tesla's a bad company. I'm not rooting for them to go under. I just have an issue with paying a little extra every year so Leonardo DiCaprio can have an artificial discount on his 6-figure ride. :)


There's a big difference between a ~$700,000 vehicle and a $70,000 vehicle (L-ION batteries are now only about 5% the cost they were in 1998, and still falling). The former is entirely infeasible. The latter is well within reach of significant parts of the population. This continued sillyness of saying only the super rich can afford a $70,000 vehicle is just absurd. It's a price right in line with BMW, et. al.

And again, Tesla is developing more mainstream offerings and, of course, Tesla isn't the only EV maker that utilizes that subsidy so complaining about the subsidy only going to rich folks is just plain wrong.


As I've said before. If battery technology has a breakthrough, it won't be because of Tesla. They're basically an end-consumer. If you want to throw some extra research funds at MIT, be my guest. That's far more likely to produce the results you're touting for Tesla.


There's a big division of labor in the R&D world. Want a completely new tech? You'll need to fund basic R&D efforts like research universities. Want existing tech to be refined and make more affordable? That's the territory of for profit entities like Tesla.

L-ION is sufficient for the needs of the bulk of all drivers. The only thing that is a problem right now is cost. Tesla and other companies actually producing EVs are how that cost will get reduced. Refinements in manufacturing, economies of scale, etc.

Of course, there are better battery technologies in development as well, which are all also getting large amounts of funding from the public. No reason we can't be pushing all angles (new battery types, better EV design, AND improvements in existing L-ION platforms). A well designed, highly refined L-ION platform is a great starting point as a platform for whatever improved battery type becomes available or even HFCs, thorium cars, or whatever other possible tech that ultimately feeds an electric motor on wheels.


And quit with the whole 'green' angle. In the real world, fossil fuels are going to supply the vast majority of Tesla's new electrical requirements.


The big difference is a petrol or natural gas car MUST use fossil fuels and other 'dirty' energy sources. An EV doesn't have to, but even it it does it is far more efficient at doing so than an ICE.


Resource acquisition is one of the primary functions of any society. Your selectively applying it as a "subsidy" is hilarious. Everything everywhere is "subsidized" using that logic.

Oh I agree, government subsidizes everything. What you have to convince me is that EVs should be an exception to that reality.

BroncoBeavis
12-02-2013, 02:15 PM
There's a big difference between a ~$700,000 vehicle and a $70,000 vehicle (L-ION batteries are now only about 5% the cost they were in 1998, and still falling). The former is entirely infeasible. The latter is well within reach of significant parts of the population. This continued sillyness of saying only the super rich can afford a $70,000 vehicle is just absurd. It's a price right in line with BMW, et. al.

We're talking a $70k vehicle that can basically only commute. The vast majority of people can't spend 70k on a daily commuter (or at all) and then pony up a bunch more for a long-distance vehicle. That basically only fits the job-slave and/or fly-everywhere set. Which is a tiny minority of drivers.

And again, Tesla is developing more mainstream offerings and, of course, Tesla isn't the only EV maker that utilizes that subsidy so complaining about the subsidy only going to rich folks is just plain wrong.

All EV subsidies are garbage. Whether it's for a golf cart or a Fisker Karma. And I'm sure Tesla's planning all sorts of things. But it's tough to bank the future on a theoretical prototype that might or might not be built in two or three years.

There's a big division of labor in the R&D world. Want a completely new tech? You'll need to fund basic R&D efforts like research universities. Want existing tech to be refined and make more affordable? That's the territory of for profit entities like Tesla.

This all presumes the bedrock technology can deliver what 90% of drivers need. In this case, it can't.

L-ION is sufficient for the needs of the bulk of all drivers. The only thing that is a problem right now is cost. Tesla and other companies actually producing EVs are how that cost will get reduced. Refinements in manufacturing, economies of scale, etc.

3-400 mile range and FULL recharge in 10-15 minutes. Then you can say that. Until then, it's a solution that doesn't fit 75% of the market (who can't afford an array of vehicles for their various travelling needs)

Of course, there are better battery technologies in development as well, which are all also getting large amounts of funding from the public. No reason we can't be pushing all angles (new battery types, better EV design, AND improvements in existing L-ION platforms). A well designed, highly refined L-ION platform is a great starting point as a platform for whatever improved battery type becomes available or even HFCs, thorium cars, or whatever other possible tech that ultimately feeds an electric motor on wheels.

My issue is with targeting subsidies towards a specific technology based mostly on political connections and/or impressions. Joe Biden should have no part in deciding which future technology ends up driving America.


The big difference is a petrol or natural gas car MUST use fossil fuels and other 'dirty' energy sources. An EV doesn't have to, but even it it does it is far more efficient at doing so than an ICE.

Once you factor in energy spent in manufacture, there's really not much of an energy efficiency edge at all. And I'm sure you could rig up an LPG vehicle to run on methane or some other non-fossil energy. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what something theoretically could run on. Only what it will run on. And I think this came up in the context of fuel cells. And there's more than one theoretical source for hydrogen energy.

Oh I agree, government subsidizes everything. What you have to convince me is that EVs should be an exception to that reality.

No, we're talking about a cash subsidy over and above the implied support of living within a civilization. There's nothing about battery power that deserves an extra-special layer of support.

The Lone Bolt
12-02-2013, 02:54 PM
We're talking a $70k vehicle that can basically only commute.

No we're not. The model S can reach an 80% SOC in 40 minutes at Supercharger stations. So if you start out with a full charge you'll drive almost 4 hours at 70 MPH before needing to recharge. By then you'll be ready to stop for lunch, stretch your legs, use the bathroom, etc. By the time you're done your model S has another 3 hours of driving on the battery. This sounds pretty practical for long distance travel unless your in some kind of hurry.

And the charging is free. And if that's not fast enough the model S is also designed for battery swapping that just takes a few minutes. Tesla is installing battery-swapping stations across the country.

Fedaykin
12-02-2013, 02:54 PM
We're talking a $70k vehicle that can basically only commute. The vast majority of people can't spend 70k on a daily commuter (or at all) and then pony up a bunch more for a long-distance vehicle. That basically only fits the job-slave and/or fly-everywhere set. Which is a tiny minority of drivers.

All EV subsidies are garbage. Whether it's for a golf cart or a Fisker Karma. And I'm sure Tesla's planning all sorts of things. But it's tough to bank the future on a theoretical prototype that might or might not be built in two or three years.

This all presumes the bedrock technology can deliver what 90% of drivers need. In this case, it can't.

3-400 mile range and FULL recharge in 10-15 minutes. Then you can say that. Until then, it's a solution that doesn't fit 75% of the market (who can't afford an array of vehicles for their various travelling needs)


ROFL!ROFL!ROFL!ROFL!ROFL!

You have a gross misunderstanding of typical vehicle use. A typical vehicle is driven 30mi day on average. A typical household has 1.9 vehicles. A typical household drives 55 miles a day across all vehicles. A typical one way vehicle trip is 10mi.

http://nhts.ornl.gov/2009/pub/stt.pdf

As for the overall market percentage, here's a nice pretty graph for you to fail to comprehend, as is so often the case with you:

http://www.solarjourneyusa.com/Pictures/Car%20trip%20distance%20cumulative.jpg

95% of trips are < 30 miles. 99% are less than 70 miles. There's a reason Nisson was happy to produce a 100mi range car. That covers 99.9% of typical daily usage with plenty of room to spare ... as measured by the real world instead of your fantasy land.

The idea that you need a vehicle with a 400 mile range for 75% of the vehicle market is... completely, hilariously wrong. And the idea that multiple vehicles is not common is similarly completely unsupported.

The only actual issue is recharge time for long trips, which is not longer a show stopper, just a minor inconvenience. An EV with a 200mi range per 30 minutes stop is acceptable. That's 3-4 hours of travel per stop, which is about the average between stops that people want anyway.

I know I would love the trade off of only ever having to visit a refueling station 4 times a year on average (for long trips taken by car) instead of 30 times a year (my average refueling needs per year).



My issue is with targeting subsidies towards a specific technology based mostly on political connections and/or impressions. Joe Biden should have no part in deciding which future technology ends up driving America.


:eyeroll:


Once you factor in energy spent in manufacture, there's really not much of an energy efficiency edge at all. And I'm sure you could rig up an LPG vehicle to run on methane or some other non-fossil energy. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what something theoretically could run on. Only what it will run on. And I think this came up in the context of fuel cells. And there's more than one theoretical source for hydrogen energy.


And here comes the gumby act. It's almost like you assume an there are no energy costs to the manufacture of ICE vehicles or the recovery, refining and distribution of fossil fuels. We've been over this before. Remove head from rectum.


No, we're talking about a cash subsidy over and above the implied support of living within a civilization. There's nothing about battery power that deserves an extra-special layer of support.

You mean like the cash and blood subsidy to keep fuel prices low? Why does petrol deserve that monumental and indefinite support from society but EVs don't deserve a temporary and comparatively insignificant support of society?

When one of the primary purposes of the U.S. Military becomes securing resources for EV companies, you'll have something of a point.

BroncoBeavis
12-02-2013, 03:23 PM
No we're not. The model S can reach an 80% SOC in 40 minutes at Supercharger stations. So if you start out with a full charge you'll drive almost 4 hours at 70 MPH before needing to recharge. By then you'll be ready to stop for lunch, stretch your legs, use the bathroom, etc. By the time you're done your model S has another 3 hours of driving on the battery. This sounds pretty practical for long distance travel unless your in some kind of hurry.

And the charging is free. And if that's not fast enough the model S is also designed for battery swapping that just takes a few minutes. Tesla is installing battery-swapping stations across the country.

The numbers you're quoting are from the $100k model. And maybe you've never long distance roadtripped much. But an hour break every 3 hours (assuming you can find a rare supercharger) sounds anything but efficient.

That's pretty much Retirement travel pace. And that's the best case scenario. Last time I looked, there were two supercharger stations along the entire Rocky Mountain front.

As far as "free" goes, that's a temporary marketing gimmick. Once there are enough stations and cars to be significant, free charging stations will go away.

The Lone Bolt
12-02-2013, 03:43 PM
The numbers you're quoting are from the $100k model. And maybe you've never long distance roadtripped much. But an hour break every 3 hours (assuming you can find a rare supercharger) sounds anything but efficient.

The 85 kWh model S is about 80K after federal tax credits, and lower if state credits are available. And I've driven long-distance before and after 4 hours of driving I have been dying for a break. 40 minutes is not very long, just time enough for lunch, bathroom, and stretching legs. Even driving a gas car I usually stop for at least a half hour after 4 hours of driving, so an extra 10 minutes would be no problem. I think almost nobody drives that long without a significant break (except you apparently).

Last time I looked, there were two supercharger stations along the entire Rocky Mountain front.

There should be three now. But that's irrelevant. They're spaced close enough to get from one to the other in a model S.

As far as "free" goes, that's a temporary marketing gimmick. Once there are enough stations and cars to be significant, free charging stations will go away.

Well I never realized you're clairvoyant. Can I get next week's winning Lotto number from you too? Or are you a personal friend of Mr. Musk's and he let you in on his scheme? ::)

Pray tell what is your supporting evidence?

BroncoBeavis
12-02-2013, 03:52 PM
ROFL!ROFL!ROFL!ROFL!ROFL!

You have a gross misunderstanding of typical vehicle use. A typical vehicle is driven 30mi day on average. A typical household has 1.9 vehicles. A typical household drives 55 miles a day across all vehicles. A typical one way vehicle trip is 10mi.

That's true of me too. Tesla would work fine for 90% of my driving (in per-trip terms anyway). But the fact that it can't suffice for the other 10% though is more important than you're grasping. I can't justify 6 figures on a vehicle that also requires me to own another vehicle. Neither can 90% of everyone else. Which is why Tesla currently sells something like 1/5th of 1% of the cars a real market player like GM does. LOL

The idea that you need a vehicle with a 400 mile range for 75% of the vehicle market is... completely, hilariously wrong. And the idea that multiple vehicles is not common is similarly completely unsupported.

Tesla's ($100k) best theoretical 280 mile range leaves you with a 140 mile practical trip distance (if you want to get home again). Anything less than that introduces significant hurdles to overcome. I feel sorry for you if you so rarely stray less than 140 miles from home. In the $70k Tesla, you're talking more like 100 miles.

No way to spin it. That's just not practical for most people.

And here comes the gumby act. It's almost like you assume an there are no energy costs to the manufacture of ICE vehicles or the recovery, refining and distribution of fossil fuels. We've been over this before. Remove head from rectum.

I'm talking the amount of energy and emissions DIFFERENCE, not just the cost itself. EVs are very energy inefficient and carbon unfriendly to build. Much more so than any internal combustion vehicle.

You mean like the cash and blood subsidy to keep fuel prices low? Why does petrol deserve that monumental and indefinite support from society but EVs don't deserve a temporary and comparatively insignificant support of society?

When one of the primary purposes of the U.S. Military becomes securing resources for EV companies, you'll have something of a point.

In these terms, energy is energy. It drives our economy. Putting it in a battery first doesn't fantasmically make that reality go away. But that goes back to the proggies' primary logical weakness. The seen vs the unseen.

The Lone Bolt
12-02-2013, 04:30 PM
(sigh)

Tesla's ($100k) wrong -- 80K or less. I already covered this best theoretical 280 mile range leaves you with a 140 mile practical trip distance (if you want to get home again or unless you can locate one of over 200 supercharger stations). Anything less than that introduces significant hurdles to overcome if you consider a 40 minute or less charge a "significant hurdle". I feel sorry for you if you so rarely stray less than 140 miles from home. In the approximately $70k Tesla, you're talking more like <strike>100</strike> 265 EPA rated miles.

No way to spin it. That's just not practical for most people if by "most people" you mean about 1% of the driving population.

Fedaykin
12-02-2013, 05:29 PM
That's true of me too. Tesla would work fine for 90% of my driving (in per-trip terms anyway). But the fact that it can't suffice for the other 10% though is more important than you're grasping. I can't justify 6 figures on a vehicle that also requires me to own another vehicle. Neither can 90% of everyone else.


:eyeroll:

1.) Like I've said dozens of times, I'm not saying the Model S itself is a practical EV. Only that is demonstrates that a practical EV is now feasible.

2.) Statistically, only much less than 1% of all trips are more than the range of a Model S.

3.) A vehicle with a 200 mile range and 30 minute recharge is perfectly feasible for 1% of trips. No second vehicle required. You sound like the dumbasses who think they NEED a 4WD vehicle, a performance oriented vehicle, or a dually truck to drive back and forth to work.

A longer range would be NICE, but not NEEDED. I have 6-8 trips of around 350 miles per year, and almost always stop at least once to eat, piss, and top off my tank. By all means, the statistical outliers who routinely drive long distance trips won't be served well by an EV. But, they are the statistical outliers. 99% of all trips are less than 70mi. Well within the range of pretty much every L-ION based EV.

Which is why Tesla currently sells something like 1/5th of 1% of the cars a real market player like GM does. LOL


Tesla Model S is currently the best selling vehicle in its class (full size luxury performance Sedan).


Tesla's ($100k) best theoretical 280 mile range leaves you with a 140 mile practical trip distance (if you want to get home again). Anything less than that introduces significant hurdles to overcome. I feel sorry for you if you so rarely stray less than 140 miles from home. In the $70k Tesla, you're talking more like 100 miles.

No way to spin it. That's just not practical for most people.


Lone Bolt has already addressed the above inaccuracies.



I'm talking the amount of energy and emissions DIFFERENCE, not just the cost itself. EVs are very energy inefficient and carbon unfriendly to build. Much more so than any internal combustion vehicle.


Not true. We've been over this before.


In these terms, energy is energy. It drives our economy. Putting it in a battery first doesn't fantasmically make that reality go away. But that goes back to the proggies' primary logical weakness. The seen vs the unseen.

Are you drunk?

BroncoBeavis
12-02-2013, 09:10 PM
Lolz. 350 miles? That's your definition of a long road trip?

You kiddies need to get out more. See the America outside Coastal Metroburbia. :)

"Hey, I know kids! Let's drive out to that Supercharger station up on I-5 and have some lunch at the Tesla Diner and then come back home!"

And the fact that you lump 4wd in with a dually in terms of practicality. Priceless. There really are two Americas, I guess. LOL

Some more real world experience:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html

Next up, Fed posting a graph saying 99.8% of New Yorkers would never want to go to Boston anyway. LOL

Fedaykin
12-02-2013, 10:21 PM
Lolz. 350 miles? That's your definition of a long road trip?

"Hey, I know kids! Let's drive out to that Supercharger station up on I-5 and have some lunch at the Tesla Diner and then come back home!"


You still don't get it. Long haul trips are a tiny, tiny minority of vehicle usage, and are certainly feasible with modern EVs. Not as convenient as with an ICE, but feasible. Again, we're talking a 30 minute break every 3-4 hours. Anyone who's actually traveled with kids knows that isn't even a significant change in literary.


And the fact that you lump 4wd in with a dually in terms of practicality. Priceless. There really are two Americas, I guess. LOL


Not lumoing the two together, just pointing out how idiotic your 400 mi range "requirement" is (a requirement that most ICEs cars don't even meet!). Just like an idiot that thinks he needs a heavy duty 4WD vehicle to commute back and forth to work 5 miles a day.


Some more real world experience:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/automobiles/stalled-on-the-ev-highway.html

Next up, Fed posting a graph saying 99.8% of New Yorkers would never want to go to Boston anyway. LOL


That bull**** has been thoroughly discredited. The person doing the review purposefully ran the Tesla out of juice to make his "story". He literally got in the car after charging it only up to 30 some miles and attempted a 70 some mile journey. Complete and utter dishonesty. Not surprised you like it.

Fedaykin
12-02-2013, 10:23 PM
Other stunning reviews by Broder:

"My experience with BMWs. I put 1 gallon of gas in my 16 gallon tank, and the car wouldn't make it 70 miles! Those ICEs need a lot of work before they are ready!"

BroncoBeavis
12-02-2013, 10:33 PM
You still don't get it. Long haul trips are a tiny, tiny minority of vehicle usage, and are certainly feasible with modern EVs. Not as convenient as with an ICE, but feasible. Again, we're talking a 30 minute break every 3-4 hours. Anyone who's actually traveled with kids knows that isn't even a significant change in literary.

30 minutes is your myth, not reality. Read the NYT article. Realistically it's an hour. And that's assuming the eminently rare Supercharger station isn't significantly out of your way (more likely than not)



Not lumoing the two together, just pointing out how idiotic your 400 mi range "requirement" is (a requirement that most ICEs cars don't even meet!). Just like an idiot that thinks he needs a heavy duty 4WD vehicle to commute back and forth to work 5 miles a day.

I said 3-400. I had a '89 5-passenger sedan that could manage that pretty easily. "Heavy duty 4wd" LOL. Have you ever driven in ice or snow? Just curious. 5 miles a day to work doesn't mean anything. Do I ever need 4wd? Even for a couple months out of the year? Then driving that 4wd to work every day makes far more sense than dropping 75g's on a finicky status symbol. The (more modest than you'll admit) energy savings will never pay for vehicles for every season.

That bull**** has been thoroughly discredited. The person doing the review purposefully ran the Tesla out of juice to make his "story". He literally got in the car after charging it only up to 30 some miles and attempted a 70 some mile journey. Complete and utter dishonesty. Not surprised you like it.

Billionaire Corporate CEO says the NYT is full of ****. Fed laps it up so long as Gaia is adequately serviced.

He was in contact with Tesla support for the whole trip. They arranged it for him. He followed their advice. And together they couldn't properly orchestrate a trip from NYC to Boston. How is Johnny Six Pack gonna make that work? LOL

Fedaykin
12-02-2013, 10:59 PM
[QUOTE=Fedaykin;3987360]You still don't get it. Long haul trips are a tiny, tiny minority of vehicle usage, and are certainly feasible with modern EVs. Not as convenient as with an ICE, but feasible. Again, we're talking a 30 minute break every 3-4 hours. Anyone who's actually traveled with kids knows that isn't even a significant change in literary.

30 minutes is your myth, not reality. Read the NYT article. Realistically it's an hour.


30 minutes is for ~80%. The hour time frame is for a full charge.


And that's assuming the eminently rare Supercharger station isn't significantly out of your way (more likely than not)


I could just see this conversation in 1917. "That's assuming the eminently rare gas station isn't significantly out of your way".


I said 3-400. I had a '89 5-passenger sedan that could manage that pretty easily. "Heavy duty 4wd" LOL. Have you ever driven in ice or snow? Just curious. 5 miles a day to work doesn't mean anything. Do I ever need 4wd? Even for a couple months out of the year? Then driving that 4wd to work every day makes far more sense than dropping 75g's on a finicky status symbol. The (more modest than you'll admit) energy savings will never pay for vehicles for every season.


:eyeroll: There are of course legit needs for 4WD, duallys and cars with very long range between refueling. That's not the point. The point is many people who have those types of vehicles don't actually need them.

The basic fact remains: 99% of all car usage requires less than a 70 mile range. A 3-400 mile range requirement is a completely arbitrary 'requirement' that is not indicated by reality.


Billionaire Corporate CEO says the NYT is full of ****. Fed laps it up so long as Gaia is adequately serviced.

He was in contact with Tesla support for the whole trip. They arranged it for him. He followed their advice. And together they couldn't properly orchestrate a trip from NYC to Boston. How is Johnny Six Pack gonna make that work? LOL

LMAO. Tesla had the data recorder from the car in question. It very clearly shows what he actually did vs what he lied about doing. And the data recorder matches with both common sense and reality, vs. the clearly made up bullsh*t of the 'reviewer' who couldn't even keep his lies straight.

"In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles," contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline."

Here ya go: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive

BroncoBeavis
12-02-2013, 11:10 PM
30 minutes is for ~80%. The hour time frame is for a full charge.



I could just see this conversation in 1917. "That's assuming the eminently rare gas station isn't significantly out of your way".



:eyeroll: There are of course legit needs for 4WD, duallys and cars with very long range between refueling. That's not the point. The point is many people who have those types of vehicles don't actually need them.

The basic fact remains: 99% of all car usage requires less than a 70 mile range. A 3-400 mile range requirement is a completely arbitrary 'requirement' that is not indicated by reality.



LMAO. Tesla had the data recorder from the car in question. It very clearly shows what he actually did vs what he lied about doing. And the data recorder matches with both common sense and reality, vs. the clearly made up bullsh*t of the 'reviewer' who couldn't even keep his lies straight.

"In his article, Broder claims that “the car fell short of its projected range on the final leg.” Then he bizarrely states that the screen showed “Est. remaining range: 32 miles” and the car traveled “51 miles," contradicting his own statement (see images below). The car actually did an admirable job exceeding its projected range. Had he not insisted on doing a nonstop 61-mile trip while staring at a screen that estimated half that range, all would have been well. He constructed a no-win scenario for any vehicle, electric or gasoline."

Here ya go: http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/most-peculiar-test-drive

Oooh, a company press release from the Company that Sued the BBC for Libel over the range they reported on their test track. LOL

Unfortunately (for you) others looked into Musk's claims and found them fairly unconvincing.

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-data-doesnt-back-his-claims-new-york-times-fakery/62149/

Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

Basically Musk makes a bunch of losers' arguments with graphs showing that maybe he was driving 52 instead of 45 to try to conserve energy.

That's the "Supercar" I want to rely on! Good luck with that sell, Elon. LOL

BroncoBeavis
12-02-2013, 11:15 PM
30 minutes is for ~80%. The hour time frame is for a full charge.

Is that with the $2,000 "Supercharge" addon?

You could buy 30,000 miles worth of fuel in a hybrid with that kind of money. LOL

Fedaykin
12-02-2013, 11:38 PM
[QUOTE=Fedaykin;3987384]

Oooh, a company press release from the Company that Sued the BBC for Libel over the range they reported on their test track. LOL


The suit for libel was for (as the company admits) staged "out of power" segment on which implied that the Tesla ran out of power during testing and had only a 55mi range (against a stated 200+) on "Top Gear".

"Of course, Top Gear admitted the car they pushed wasn't out of batteries but that it was done for effect and that it is completely true that the car would have run out at 55 miles of track time. Producer Andy Wilman defended their actions by basically saying "Duh, it's a television show" and accusing Tesla of trying to use them for press."

http://jalopnik.com/5887611/judge-throws-out-teslas-top-gear-libel-lawsuit

FYI: Top Gear was NOT driving the Tesla Roadster under the conditions where it would get the stated 200mi range. They were pushing it to its limits on a track. Guess what, when you take a petrol car out and do 0-60 tests and run it 120mph around a track, it's range gets drastically reduced too. As for 55mi? they never gave any information on how they figured that, so there's really nothing to go on.


Unfortunately (for you) others looked into Musk's claims and found them fairly unconvincing.

http://www.thewire.com/technology/2013/02/elon-musks-data-doesnt-back-his-claims-new-york-times-fakery/62149/

Elon Musk's Data Doesn't Back Up His Claims of New York Times Fakery

Basically Musk makes a bunch of losers' arguments with graphs showing that maybe he was driving 52 instead of 45 to try to conserve energy.

That's the "Supercar" I want to rely on! Good luck with that sell, Elon. LOL

Musk overstepped a few things, but not on the key issue: Broder purposefully charged the car to only 32 miles and attempted a 61 mile journey (explicity against advice from Tesla and basic common sense), despite the car telling him he would not make it. He admits this is what he did. He set up the "failure" in order to get a "story". Your article (which I've read before) does not dispute that fact.

Fedaykin
12-02-2013, 11:44 PM
Broder: Hey, should I put 1 gallon of gas in, or fill up the tank?
Car Company: Well, if you want to go more than 32 miles, you better put more than 1 gallon in.
Broder: **** it, I'll just put in one gallon

*car guns out of gas after 51 miles*

Broder: OMG I ran out of gas before making it 61 miles. What a POS car!

houghtam
12-03-2013, 06:35 AM
[QUOTE=BroncoBeavis;3987389]

The suit for libel was for (as the company admits) staged "out of power" segment on which implied that the Tesla ran out of power during testing and had only a 55mi range (against a stated 200+) on "Top Gear".

"Of course, Top Gear admitted the car they pushed wasn't out of batteries but that it was done for effect and that it is completely true that the car would have run out at 55 miles of track time. Producer Andy Wilman defended their actions by basically saying "Duh, it's a television show" and accusing Tesla of trying to use them for press."

http://jalopnik.com/5887611/judge-throws-out-teslas-top-gear-libel-lawsuit

FYI: Top Gear was NOT driving the Tesla Roadster under the conditions where it would get the stated 200mi range. They were pushing it to its limits on a track. Guess what, when you take a petrol car out and do 0-60 tests and run it 120mph around a track, it's range gets drastically reduced too. As for 55mi? they never gave any information on how they figured that, so there's really nothing to go on.



Musk overstepped a few things, but not on the key issue: Broder purposefully charged the car to only 32 miles and attempted a 61 mile journey (explicity against advice from Tesla and basic common sense), despite the car telling him he would not make it. He admits this is what he did. He set up the "failure" in order to get a "story". Your article (which I've read before) does not dispute that fact.

Now watch as things evolve:

Beavis: "Ha, they had to sue Top Gear for libel!"

Fed: "Yeah, and they pretty much were guilty of it."

Beavis: "Well duh, it's a tv show..."

BroncoBeavis
12-03-2013, 07:22 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2012/feb/23/top-gear-libel-case-tesla-struck-out

But Mr Justice Tugendhat, in a ruling handed down at the high court on Thursday, dismissed Tesla's attempt to amend a previous libel claim which was struck out last October.

Tugendhat said Tesla's amendment was "not capable of being defamatory at all, or, if it is, it is not capable of being a sufficiently serious defamatory meaning to constitute a real and substantial tort".

He added that "as any reasonable motorist knows, a manufacturer's statement about the range of a motor vehicle is always qualified by a statement as to the driving conditions under which that range may be expected.

"For example, one range may be given for urban driving, and another for other conditions. But such statements are rarely, if ever, given to the public by reference to racing on a test track."

In a statement following today's ruling, the BBC said: "We are pleased Mr Justice Tugendhat has ruled in favour of the BBC on both the issues before the court, first in striking out Tesla's libel claim against the BBC; and secondly in describing Tesla's malicious falsehood claim as so 'gravely deficient' it too could not be allowed to proceed."

LOL. The 55 mile sports track supercar! Queue Elon: "But you should've set the cruise to 45 and turned off the heat!" LOL