Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 294

Thread: Electric cars

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,206
    Even if it made financial sense and would work there are too many questions for me. Look at what happened with biofuel subsidies. Article in the NYT a couple of weeks ago about the massive unintended results of that push. Saw another article about the problems recycling solar panels. Not impossible, but apparently harder than you would think for a green technology, and we now have the things piling up.

    What unintended consequences of battery production will we be looking at in 10 years time that we cannot see now?

    ETA: Google NYT and Palm Oil for the article on the biofuels disaster.
    Last edited by Nicholas Lawrence; 12-04-2018 at 5:15 PM.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Northern Florida
    Posts
    638
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    Somebody needs to calculate the cost benefit function for electricity cost per charge and fule range (put it in terms of cost per mile) and compare that with equivalent cost per mile for gasoline. There is a point at which the costs would be equivalent --- just for the sake of discussion, don't include time value such as time to refill a gas tank vs wait for a battery charge. Also, don't include cost of the vehicle. Just day to day operating costs. Don't include maintenance either ( ie, cost of replacement batteries). Anyone have hard data such as this?
    In my earlier post (https://sawmillcreek.org/showthread....30#post2872030) I mentioned that Consumer Reports a few years ago said some model of Tesla cost $.04/mile to operate at whatever cost per KWH they used. That was also what we spent on gas for our Prius. It's probably $.05/mile for gas now. So equivalent cost/mile around here comes at 45-50 mpg if gas is $2.70/gallon and somebody pays for the electricity.

  3. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Pat Barry View Post
    Somebody needs to calculate the cost benefit function for electricity cost per charge and fule range (put it in terms of cost per mile) and compare that with equivalent cost per mile for gasoline. There is a point at which the costs would be equivalent --- just for the sake of discussion, don't include time value such as time to refill a gas tank vs wait for a battery charge. Also, don't include cost of the vehicle. Just day to day operating costs. Don't include maintenance either ( ie, cost of replacement batteries). Anyone have hard data such as this?
    The Tesla Model 3 is rated at 26 KWh per 100 miles. If electricity cost $0.15 per KWh, that's 3.9 cents per mile. If it's $0.20 per KWh, it 5.2 cents per mile.

    If you have a gasoline car that gets 40 miles per gallon and gas cost $3.00 per gallon, the cost per mile is 7.5 cents per mile. If gas is $2.50 per gallon, the cost per mile is 6.3 cents per mile.
    If you get 30 MPG and gas is $3.00 per gallon, the cost per mile is 10 cents per mile. If gas is $2.50 per gallon, the cost per mile is 8.3 cents per mile.

    Mike
    Last edited by Mike Henderson; 12-04-2018 at 7:30 PM.
    Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Anaheim, California
    Posts
    6,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Edwin Santos View Post
    On a partially related note, I wonder how much range anxiety existed in the early days of the automobile before gas and service stations became abundant?
    I suspect, in the early days, "range anxiety" was more of the form, "How far can we go before something breaks?"

    I'm old enough and have been poor enough to have owned cars for which the answer to that question was the same order of magnitude as miles-per-tank. YMMV, so to speak.
    Last edited by Lee DeRaud; 12-04-2018 at 7:35 PM.
    Yoga class makes me feel like a total stud, mostly because I'm about as flexible as a 2x4.
    "Design"? Possibly. "Intelligent"? Sure doesn't look like it from this angle.
    We used to be hunter gatherers. Now we're shopper borrowers.
    The three most important words in the English language: "Front Towards Enemy".
    The world makes a lot more sense when you remember that Butthead was the smart one.
    You can never be too rich, too thin, or have too much ammo.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    3,970
    Did you read the patently absurd assumptions that went into the conclusion reached by that ridiculous report. You really ought to look at all the facts before you swallow that bait, hook line and sinker.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Friedrichs View Post
    An interesting comment, given the timing. Did you miss the news of the report indicating that immediate action is needed to prevent catastrophic loss of life and massive reduction in GDP due to pollution from burning fossil fuels? It's very short-sighted to say, "Well when I was a kid, we saw soot everywhere, but now I don't see that, so pollution must be gone"

  6. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Art Mann View Post
    Did you read the patently absurd assumptions that went into the conclusion reached by that ridiculous report. You really ought to look at all the facts before you swallow that bait, hook line and sinker.
    Could you please enlighten us? Also, throwing in some data would be useful, or at least pointing out the biases in their data without using fancy adjectives to deride the report?

    In the end, we are all on the same boat: some have given up, some think we can do something and some think everything is just fine. Unfortunately, only one group can be right and we'll all be long gone before we know who was right. That is to say, we, who believe in that report, may also be wrong.

    However, for now, I think I'll believe the scientists who have compiled that report and have put in countless hours of work and expertise into it, and have solid, publicly available and verifiable data to back up their claims.

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Art Mann View Post
    Did you read the patently absurd assumptions that went into the conclusion reached by that ridiculous report. You really ought to look at all the facts before you swallow that bait, hook line and sinker.
    I've never understood why lay people think they are qualified to "have an opinion" on climate science.

    You wouldn't walk into an operating room and try to correct a surgeon's technique.

    You wouldn't walk into an air traffic control tower and try to correct instructions being given to pilots.

    Unless you're an experienced scientist, expertly knowledgeable in that area, why do you think your opinions on climate change should be considered by others?

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Deep South
    Posts
    3,970
    It would take a long time to gather all the information that has come to light since the report was released but a few things stick out in my mind. The report assumes that the temperature rise over the time period in question will be 15 degrees F. That number is higher than the worst case scenario published by the IPCC. The number is based on predictions from computer models that have already been proven to be spectacularly wrong on previous occasions. Another assumption is that coal consumption will resume its upward use trajectory. In reality, natural gas, which releases much less carbon into the atmosphere, is rapidly taking the place of coal for economic rather than ecological reasons. The report also implies that current weather conditions are out of the normal and will continue to get worse, which will profoundly affect the economy. The reality is that current weather conditions are not very different from previous centuries and have not been getting any worse so far. All this information is available on line and in most cases it comes directly from government sources. If you dig enough, most of the report turns out to be guesses derived from a near impossible combination of worst case scenarios. It is not difficult to understand and does not require the knowledge of experts as Dan assumes. Sometimes you just have to look at the obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by Yathin Krishnappa View Post
    Could you please enlighten us? Also, throwing in some data would be useful, or at least pointing out the biases in their data without using fancy adjectives to deride the report?

    In the end, we are all on the same boat: some have given up, some think we can do something and some think everything is just fine. Unfortunately, only one group can be right and we'll all be long gone before we know who was right. That is to say, we, who believe in that report, may also be wrong.

    However, for now, I think I'll believe the scientists who have compiled that report and have put in countless hours of work and expertise into it, and have solid, publicly available and verifiable data to back up their claims.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    New Westminster BC
    Posts
    2,954
    OK, does the report assume a 15 F temperature rise or does it predict a 15 F rise based on computer modelling? Those are not the same thing. Mind providing a link or reference to what chapter and page of the report answers this? Where does the report say coal consumption will increase? Here's a direct quote from the report Chapter 4 page 71.
    "At the same time, the nature of the energysystem itself is changing. Low carbon-emittingnatural gas generation has displaced coalgeneration due to the rising production oflow-cost, unconventional natural gas, in partsupported by federal investment in researchand development. In the last 10 years, the shareof generation from natural gas increased from20% to over 30%, while coal has declined fromnearly 50% to around 30%. Over this sametime, generation from wind and solar has grownfrom less than 1% to over 5% due to a combinationof technological progress, dramatic costreductions, and federal and state policies"

    What government data are referring to that supports your case? Here's some government data from NOAA.

    "Based on the NOAA dataset (note that other datasets produce different rankings[21]), the following table lists the global combined land and ocean annually averaged temperature rank and anomaly for each of the 10 warmest years on record.[22]
    Rank Year Anomaly °C Anomaly °F
    1 2016 0.94 1.69
    2 2015 0.90 1.62
    3 2017 0.84 1.51
    4 2014 0.74 1.33
    5 2010 0.70 1.26
    6 2013 0.66 1.19
    7 2005 0.65 1.17
    8 2009 0.64 1.15
    9 1998 0.63 1.13
    10 2012 0.62 1.12
    Although the NCDC temperature record begins in 1880, reconstructions of earlier temperatures based on climate proxies, suggest these years may be the warmest for several centuries to millennia, or longer."

  10. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Henderson View Post
    The Tesla Model 3 is rated at 26 KWh per 100 miles. If electricity cost $0.15 per KWh, that's 3.9 cents per mile. If it's $0.20 per KWh, it 5.2 cents per mile.

    If you have a gasoline car that gets 40 miles per gallon and gas cost $3.00 per gallon, the cost per mile is 7.5 cents per mile. If gas is $2.50 per gallon, the cost per mile is 6.3 cents per mile.
    If you get 30 MPG and gas is $3.00 per gallon, the cost per mile is 10 cents per mile. If gas is $2.50 per gallon, the cost per mile is 8.3 cents per mile.

    Mike
    maybe you can do these numbers backwards? What if I pay $0.09 kilowatt, $.16 per kilowatt, $.19 per kilowatt, and gasoline on a good day is $1.10/L and diesel is $1.36/L

    You’re really confusing me by the kilowatt hour which is metric and then converting and then back converting to Imperil.

    Fuel efficiency verses km... I may have more questions about thrust load efficiency.
    Last edited by Matt Mattingley; 12-05-2018 at 2:48 AM.

  11. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Friedrichs View Post
    I've never understood why lay people think they are qualified to "have an opinion" on climate science.

    You wouldn't walk into an operating room and try to correct a surgeon's technique.

    You wouldn't walk into an air traffic control tower and try to correct instructions being given to pilots.

    Unless you're an experienced scientist, expertly knowledgeable in that area, why do you think your opinions on climate change should be considered by others?
    Same holds true, why would one consider yourself a Vfd expert? We’re all here to try to help, via experiences. I’ve bumped heads with you on programming. I usually walk away...

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,582
    We have no reason not to believe the Presidents climate change report. The facts are the facts and the models are based on real data. It takes a pretty blind or arrogant person to not see the future depicted as more bleak.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    1,206
    Quote Originally Posted by Dan Friedrichs View Post
    I've never understood why lay people think they are qualified to "have an opinion" on climate science.

    You wouldn't walk into an operating room and try to correct a surgeon's technique.

    You wouldn't walk into an air traffic control tower and try to correct instructions being given to pilots.

    Unless you're an experienced scientist, expertly knowledgeable in that area, why do you think your opinions on climate change should be considered by others?
    Google “the replication crisis” and “Brian Wansink” if you wonder why lay people might not all believe they should blindly accept the peer-reviewed settled science. And then read that NYT article I mentioned earlier and think about the potential unintended consequences of completely changing how several billion people move about, feed themselves, and keep warm.

    If the smart people can adopt a biofuels policy that not only is wasteful and corrupt, but also makes the problem they are trying to solve worse, why do you think everyone else should agree to sign over control of the economy to “experienced scientists, expertly knowledgeable in that area” without asking any questions?

    This is America. We are supposed to have fellow citizens who think for themselves. If you want to go in for spine surgery without asking any questions that is your right. If others want to get ask about technique, experience, and alternatives, and then go get a second opinion, that is their right.

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Wayland, MA
    Posts
    3,651
    A Tesla Model S (the large sedan) gets about 3 mi per kWh of electricity, so depending on your cost of electricity somewhere between 2 and 8 cents a mile. Your mileage may vary (literally) depending on how you drive. Smaller cars of course do better.

    A similar size Mercedes with a gasoline engine costs about 20 cents a mile for gas.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Hayes, Virginia
    Posts
    14,759
    Beat me if you like but I believe Hydrogen is the fuel of the future. Our planet is 80% water so the source is inexhaustible and we can extract hydrogen from water via solar technology. There will be zero pollution and no nasty chemicals in our local recycling centers. Water is the only effluent from burning hydrogen gas. We already have the technology to convert to hydrogen gas, the only mountain to cross is our own Federal Government because it will never be able to control hydrogen the way they do every other source of fuel.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •