Once the liberals and tree huggers figured out that Nukes were not going to destroy the world, now they're ok. But VERY far from carbon neutral. But, once again, we are very far off topic.
Once the liberals and tree huggers figured out that Nukes were not going to destroy the world, now they're ok. But VERY far from carbon neutral. But, once again, we are very far off topic.
03Panther said:In reply to codrus (Forum Supporter) :
Other than that magic stuff that comes out of the wall in so many houses, when did electricity become carbon neutral?
It didn't, although a growing percentage of its generation is. And even with transmission losses, it is both cleaner and more efficient to burn natural gas or coal at a single, controlled site than it is to have millions of fuel powered vehicles. Think of how the most efficient piston engines are Big Ship engines, butnon an even larger scale.
In reply to 03Panther :
Most people who are technically savy understand the only flaw with nuclear is disposal of the spent waste. That is a purely political issue Caused by NIMBY which has nothing to do with political affiliation except justifiable concern about the location of the waste site.
PS if by tree hugger you mean someone who believes in leaving the world better for our children then we got it. Yes most people fall into that category .
In reply to Pete. (l33t FS) :
Well said Pete. I might add further that with solar and wind generation it's also viable on a smaller and smaller scale with fewer transmission losses.
Hence is becoming more and more carbon efficient.
While we are not there yet. The general trend is moving in that direction.
03Panther said:Once the liberals and tree huggers figured out that Nukes were not going to destroy the world, now they're ok. But VERY far from carbon neutral. But, once again, we are very far off topic.
I'm curious why you say nuclear power isn't "carbon neutral"? The usual definition of that term means it's not adding net CO2 to the atmosphere, and there's none of that happening during the power generation process. Yes, you need to figure out a way for all of the supporting activity (mining, enrichment, transportation, disposal, etc) to run off the nuclear power plant's output, but the electricity+CO2+H2O => hydrocarbon tech mentioned above would go a long way towards making that possible.
(For reference I'm neither "liberal" (in the sense of left-wing) nor a tree hugger, and have been a fan of nuclear power since I was old enough to know what it was).
mikedd969 said:In reply to Oldboy Speedwell :
Pretty, example of an incredible driving car, but I'd miss the glorious sound from that Lampredi designed twin-cam 4. IMHO that is the heart and soul of any old Alfa of that era, and the best reason for ownig one. Without it, I fear most of the "Alfa Magic" would be gone.
I too love the sound of a screaming V12 but then I also love the sound of a steam engine. Both are really complex solutions compared to the simplicity of an electric motor.
Can you imagine how inefficient the power generation of an electric motor would be if it had to start and stop, change direction of 12 pistons at 7000 RPM not to add open and close all those valves , charge, compress, generate power, and clean in order to generate power?
All electric motor has to do is rotate. Period. Peak torque is at a dead stop where it's need the most to get moving.
I'm pretty convinced that 95% of the people that say dumb things about EVs have never driven one. And the range issue always makes me laugh - such a tiny portion of the population drives hundreds of miles per day (not talking about semis, that's a different issue), yet the argument that always comes up is something ridiculous like "well, if I had to drive from Florida to Alaska my 1984 F150 would do it faster!" It's a non-issue. I don't think I've ever owned an ICE car that could get more than 400 miles per tank, yet the Model S gets more than 400 miles per charge - and the Plaid version gets more than 520 miles per charge. Their range has been increasing every year. I imagine in about 5 years they'll be pushing 600 or 650 mile ranges. EVs are the future. Some people will continue to complain about them and keep living in the 70s. C'est la vie.
More on the original topic, the Mustang Mach-E looks pretty awful in photos, but I saw one in person yesterday and was actually impressed. It looked pretty fantastic. I've also read that Ford is expecting some pretty hefty depreciation on that, so buying a 3 year old Mach-E off lease might be a good cheap option to get into a relatively new EV. My wife and I have already decided that her next car will be an EV. And with Saudi Arabia and Russia driving up crude oil and thus gas prices, financially it starts to make more and more sense.
To further highlight the stupidity of some of the comments I see about EVs, I just read this on an article about the Tesla Model S plaid:
"When it can finish the 24hrs of Daytona, I’ll be impressed. Until then, it’s internal combustion for me."
Also, here's another non-ugly EV. Audi E-Tron GT
My wife and I were discussing this article yesterday. I'm sold on EVs (more on that in a bit) but she isn't. Her whole argument is based around refueling time. To her, the fact it takes an EV 30 minutes or more to get to ~80% charge to go ~300 miles is a loser compared to her Jetta TDI that can do nearly 600 miles on a single tank and refuel in about 5 minutes. While she isn't wrong my argument is we rarely ever use that full 600 miles in one stint and if we do, we usually time out refueling stops with food or other essentials. As long as a supercharger is present that can bring an EV back up to ~300 mi range in 1 hr or less I don't see it being a major inconvenience for us. Since we both work from home and generally drive <50 miles a day having an EV that's plugged in all the time at home would work perfectly for us 95% of the time.
That being said I do have some big gripes with the EV market. First and foremost is they are marketing these cars at the wrong people. Outside of a few, EVs are considered luxury vehicles. My belief is this is because the battery/technology costs so much the OEMs upscale the rest of the car to try to justify the cost to the user. A Model 3 is a mid-sized sedan comparable to a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic. I understand the quality and feel won't be the same but you can get base model Corollas and Civics for more than $10k below the cost of a base Model 3. For most Americans that's a no-brainer. My other gripe is I think EV manufacturers aren't targeting the most lucrative segments in the US: trucks, CUVs and minivans. Our family vehicle is a Ford Flex. The closest EV analog is the Model X, is ~twice the cost. We've owned it for almost 9 nears and I estimate we still have another ~6 years before the total ownership cost nears that of a new Model X. Make a ~$40k, 6+ seater CUV that gets 300 miles on a single charge and it'll sell like hot cakes to upper middle class America.
RichardSIA said:The future of cars is........, ah, maybe not!
So to summarize the article.
"Idiots who don't understand how electricity works are surprised their 120v level one home chargers take forever to charge"
These are probably the same people who complain their ancient 0.5 amp charger takes hours to charge their new cellphone that didn't come with the modern standard 3amp charger.
More money than brains, and a desire to be trendy.
I think EV ownership is going to be a lot easier for people who have garages of their own or live in apartment complexes where there are some decent charger options. For the random person that often has to park on the street it seems less appealing. A little like motorcycle ownership.
In reply to infernosg :
Remember, Ford is making an electric F150 and Chevy is making an electric Silverado soon. I haven't been able to find any real data on prices but I've seen estimates that they'll be expensive, like $70 grand, so that's an issue - yet I've also read that the entry level Cybertruck will start at $39K. Much more reasonable. Also, Musk has stated a desire to make a cheaper car in the near future.
pres589 (djronnebaum) said:I think EV ownership is going to be a lot easier for people who have garages of their own or live in apartment complexes where there are some decent charger options. For the random person that often has to park on the street it seems less appealing. A little like motorcycle ownership.
Apparently you doubt that the cities will figure out that putting electricity at the curb is another way to make income. Since they have street lights and electric stop signals, the only challenge will be to hook up a meter to each outlet.
infernosg said:My wife and I were discussing this article yesterday. I'm sold on EVs (more on that in a bit) but she isn't. Her whole argument is based around refueling time. To her, the fact it takes an EV 30 minutes or more to get to ~80% charge to go ~300 miles is a loser compared to her Jetta TDI that can do nearly 600 miles on a single tank and refuel in about 5 minutes. While she isn't wrong my argument is we rarely ever use that full 600 miles in one stint and if we do, we usually time out refueling stops with food or other essentials. As long as a supercharger is present that can bring an EV back up to ~300 mi range in 1 hr or less I don't see it being a major inconvenience for us. Since we both work from home and generally drive <50 miles a day having an EV that's plugged in all the time at home would work perfectly for us 95% of the time.
That being said I do have some big gripes with the EV market. First and foremost is they are marketing these cars at the wrong people. Outside of a few, EVs are considered luxury vehicles. My belief is this is because the battery/technology costs so much the OEMs upscale the rest of the car to try to justify the cost to the user. A Model 3 is a mid-sized sedan comparable to a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic. I understand the quality and feel won't be the same but you can get base model Corollas and Civics for more than $10k below the cost of a base Model 3. For most Americans that's a no-brainer. My other gripe is I think EV manufacturers aren't targeting the most lucrative segments in the US: trucks, CUVs and minivans. Our family vehicle is a Ford Flex. The closest EV analog is the Model X, is ~twice the cost. We've owned it for almost 9 nears and I estimate we still have another ~6 years before the total ownership cost nears that of a new Model X. Make a ~$40k, 6+ seater CUV that gets 300 miles on a single charge and it'll sell like hot cakes to upper middle class America.
Have her do some math. Ask her to calculate what her Jetta costs per year to drive. Including gas and oil changes. Multiply that times the number of working years she has left. Then do the same for an EV.
Tell her the money she saves she gets to spend.
The other thing is if your wife is anything like most wives. Tell her the range not in miles but time. 300 miles can be up to 6 hours. Long before that range is met her bladder will want a break. I'm sorry but no women on this planet can make a bathroom break in 5 minutes. ( not after sitting for up to 6 hours ) So to her 5 minute refueling time have her add a bathroom break and a stop to eat.
frenchyd said:infernosg said:My wife and I were discussing this article yesterday. I'm sold on EVs (more on that in a bit) but she isn't. Her whole argument is based around refueling time. To her, the fact it takes an EV 30 minutes or more to get to ~80% charge to go ~300 miles is a loser compared to her Jetta TDI that can do nearly 600 miles on a single tank and refuel in about 5 minutes. While she isn't wrong my argument is we rarely ever use that full 600 miles in one stint and if we do, we usually time out refueling stops with food or other essentials. As long as a supercharger is present that can bring an EV back up to ~300 mi range in 1 hr or less I don't see it being a major inconvenience for us. Since we both work from home and generally drive <50 miles a day having an EV that's plugged in all the time at home would work perfectly for us 95% of the time.
That being said I do have some big gripes with the EV market. First and foremost is they are marketing these cars at the wrong people. Outside of a few, EVs are considered luxury vehicles. My belief is this is because the battery/technology costs so much the OEMs upscale the rest of the car to try to justify the cost to the user. A Model 3 is a mid-sized sedan comparable to a Toyota Corolla or Honda Civic. I understand the quality and feel won't be the same but you can get base model Corollas and Civics for more than $10k below the cost of a base Model 3. For most Americans that's a no-brainer. My other gripe is I think EV manufacturers aren't targeting the most lucrative segments in the US: trucks, CUVs and minivans. Our family vehicle is a Ford Flex. The closest EV analog is the Model X, is ~twice the cost. We've owned it for almost 9 nears and I estimate we still have another ~6 years before the total ownership cost nears that of a new Model X. Make a ~$40k, 6+ seater CUV that gets 300 miles on a single charge and it'll sell like hot cakes to upper middle class America.
Have her do some math. Ask her to calculate what her Jetta costs per year to drive. Including gas and oil changes. Multiply that times the number of working years she has left. Then do the same for an EV.
Tell her the money she saves she gets to spend.
Add in repairs to the VWs notoriously break-y fuel system (which the EV doesn't have), emissions system (which the EV doesn't have), brakes (which the EV doesn't use), exhaust system (which the EV doesn't have), and other fluid changes that the EV doesn't need. Also no stopping for gas on a commute. No waiting in the cold or rain for gas to pump. You know how you always get stuck at the super slow half-broken pump? No more of that. You know when traffic is busy and getting gas makes you late? No more of that. It's pretty great.
frenchyd said:pres589 (djronnebaum) said:I think EV ownership is going to be a lot easier for people who have garages of their own or live in apartment complexes where there are some decent charger options. For the random person that often has to park on the street it seems less appealing. A little like motorcycle ownership.
Apparently you doubt that the cities will figure out that putting electricity at the curb is another way to make income. Since they have street lights and electric stop signals, the only challenge will be to hook up a meter to each outlet.
You're making the same mistake as the people who are upset that level 1 charging is so slow. Sure, there's power running to the traffic lights, but there isn't anywhere close to enough of it to support a block lined with level 2 chargers at every parking meter. Old-style incandescent traffic lights use 100W bulbs, assume it's got 3 signals in each of 4 directions and that's 1200W (new style LED ones are probably 10-15% of that). Street lights are also about 100W and you'll probably have 6 of them per blocks. That's about 2kW of power per block.
Level 2 chargers are around 10kW each. I doubt there's enough spare capacity to install even one of those on a block without a lot of trenching to run new power lines.
RevRico said:RichardSIA said:The future of cars is........, ah, maybe not!
So to summarize the article.
"Idiots who don't understand how electricity works are surprised their 120v level one home chargers take forever to charge"
These are probably the same people who complain their ancient 0.5 amp charger takes hours to charge their new cellphone that didn't come with the modern standard 3amp charger.
More money than brains, and a desire to be trendy.
True, but his article does demonstrate what manufacturers have to deal with: people who simply don't understand what they are buying.
RichardSIA said:The future of cars is........, ah, maybe not!
This is an interesting spin on the original article in the Nature Energy Journal. I admit to not reading the original article because you have to pay for it but the article's title Understanding discontinuance among California’s electric vehicle owners and the Abstract make it clear the the study wasn't intended to be a condemnation of the move to EVs but rather to understand the obstacles that need to be overcome.
The fact that there's an 18% discontinuance rate indicates that 82% of buyers continue with EVs after the initial purchase. That's frankly higher than I would have expected.
If one only read threads on the internet they'd be left with the impression that EV manufacturers and proponents of EVs have never thought of any of the obstacles to fuller adaptation. The fact of the mater is that universities, national labs, manufacturers and government agencies have been studying things like charging infrastructure, battery disposal issues, energy source emissions and other challenges for decades. That's not to say that the problems have all been solved or even that they can be solved but the body of research on the topic, taken as whole is showing that a much large adaptation of EVs is now practical and good for the planet and work is being done to understand and overcome the many hurdles.
In reply to frenchyd :
You'd still be surprised. The Jetta gets 40-45 mi/gal and ever since Dieselgate maintenance hasn't really been an issue. Oddly, our Flex has been more of a maintenance pain than the VW. While I haven't done the math as detailed as the Flex I'm certain we're still under the price of a new Model 3. We paid around $25k in 2010 and I estimate we've spent about $10k in fuel over that time. Since the mythical $35k Model 3 doesn't exist I'd say we're doing alright. I'd still say we're looking at around 15 years before the total costs equal that of a Model 3. Don't get me wrong, I'm certain our next vehicle will be an EV but I'm in no hurry to replace anything. The VW is an existing commodity. Us selling it to someone else so we can buy an EV does absolutely nothing for the environment.
In reply to tuna55 :
It's funny you mentions brakes. In 135k miles of ownership I've replaced the brakes on the TDI once. The Tesla will still use pads and rotors and considering the performance level I'm willing to bet they're more expensive than those for our lowly VW. I will say that everything you mentioned about stopping for gas can also apply to EVs. It's the same arguments people make about EVs never being charged when you need them. I time my fill ups when I'm already out. It's very rare that I need to be somewhere that I have to rush because I'm low on fuel. However, the upside is I'll always be able to find it if that does happen and in ~5 minutes I'm refueled and ready to go. A lessor prepared individual with an EV can't do that. Again, not knocking EVs. They're definitely the future and we'll own one. For us, it's just not the right moment yet.
In reply to infernosg :
That's a well thought out position. The one factor that nobody knows yet is the cost of aging both with the Jetta and any potential EV.
Much as I love pistons, crankshafts, valves, and gears, I've got to believe that an electric transportation appliance will cost less than a gas ( or diesel ) transportation appliance in the long run.
The interesting question yet to be resolved is will the Teasla be the king of EV reliability or will another brand snag that reputation. Will historically reliable cars such as Toyota, Honda, Mercedes Benz, resume their position in EV's Or will GM, Ford, Lotus, Jaguar capture that?
I will say that from Preliminary reports you would be foolish to dismiss Chevy.
Just a point of clarification on brakes, I can't speak for the model three but in my bolt I will go weeks before I touch the brake pedal. They're never going to wear out at that rate.
tuna55 said:Just a point of clarification on brakes, I can't speak for the model three but in my bolt I will go weeks before I touch the brake pedal. They're never going to wear out at that rate.
Laguna Seca can fix that for you. :)
wspohn said:The Model 3 is a beauty queen compared to the Muskmobile (aka the Cybertruck) - not THAT is fugly.
If I can fit two dirt bikes in the bed, put my dogs in the back seat and tow a boat with that, I will take one! I really like the ramp. The fact that it looks like it was built by SpaceX to haul motorcycles for Captain Piccard is a good thing.
Honestly, assuming that savings in factory production time and creation actually trickle down to the consumer, a Cybertruck using the 4680 battery cells could be a turning point in a lot of technologies with lithium and cars, especially if the truck is as mechanically impressive as Tesla claims and is as easily built as is believed. I could see a cottage industry appearing of other things that are "cyberetrucked"- tons of folded stainless things.
All lithium cells generate heat from the inside-->outside, and are incased in metal tubes typically made of aluminum. No matter what, a cell always at some point has to radiate heat out for transfer which is inefficient and it has to be conducted through multiple different layers of metals, Jelly electrolytes, and plastics. But the 4680 has a tube right in the center- RIGHT where all the heat is made, which means the overheating problems on tracks might be a thing of the past, assuming it reigns supreme as "the" cell. And it might- half the reason they're making the darn thing is because production of modern lithium chemistries is complicated and its meant to make it as easy and cheap as possible.
In reply to Snowdoggie (Forum Supporter) :
I'm totally ready for the Cybertruck and the Aptera. I'm so happy cars are really starting to get weird; I'd rather something illicit a reaction rather than the next melted bar of soap Nissan thing.
You'll need to log in to post.
