Join Early Retirement Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-19-2016, 10:23 AM   #21
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
No, it isn't insignificant.
But likewise, it has nothing to do with the 103/100 rating given the Model S.

Those are two different measurements.
Actually they are related. Predicted reliability was a part of the 103/100 overall score (see below). The 103/100 was based on a predicted "average" reliability, CR has revised that to "worse-than-average."

If you go to the CR website, you will find the once freely available Aug/Sept review and rating has been pulled. If there's a new one, I've been unable to find it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CR
Overall Score
This is a comprehensive score that incorporates road-test performance, predicted reliability, owner satisfaction, and safety. A range of numbers signifies that multiple versions of the vehicle or powertrains were tested.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Model S.jpg (333.7 KB, 11 views)
File Type: png reliability.png (137.7 KB, 11 views)
__________________

__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 Early Retirement and Financial Independence Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

Are you planning to be financially independent as early as possible so you can live life on your own terms? Discuss successful investing strategies, asset allocation models, tax strategies and other related topics in our online forum community. Our members range from young folks just starting their journey to financial independence, military retirees and even multimillionaires. No matter where you fit in you'll find that Early-Retirement.org is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with our members, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create a retirement blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 03-19-2016, 10:41 AM   #22
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Midpack's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 11,974
And
Quote:
Jake Fisher, director of [Consumer Reports] auto testing, said because of faltering reliability scores, the Model S is no longer the top ultraluxury car and ranks behind the BMW 750i xDrive, Lexus LS 460L and Audi A8 L. He said Tesla's quality problems including issues with hatches, door handles, electric motors and batteries have increased as the automaker has ramped up production.
No 3-peat for Tesla Model S - Business Insider
__________________

__________________
No one agrees with other people's opinions; they merely agree with their own opinions -- expressed by somebody else. Sydney Tremayne
Retired Jun 2011 at age 57

Target AA: 60% equity funds / 35% bond funds / 5% cash
Target WR: Approx 2.5% Approx 20% SI (secure income, SS only)
Midpack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 11:29 AM   #23
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixonge View Post
... Even on a Nissan LEAF a rapid-charge outlet gets you 80% charge in 30 minutes. Much faster w/ better range for Teslas. It would still be tricky to cycle your fleet and make that work, though...
I was thinking that regular rapid charging would significantly degrade the battery, but this real-world test indicates it's not a huge factor (but it's a good news / bad news story):

Does Quick Charging Hurt Battery Life? Total Miles Are More Important

Quote:
By 40,000 miles, the difference was still three percent--22 percent degradation for the Level 2 cars, 25 percent for the quick-charging cars.
First, let's use the appropriate denominator for the math. That's 3 percentage points difference, but an additional 13.6% degradation for the fast charge car. Still not so bad considering this was daily fast charging. But I imagine that is just what a taxi or fleet car would need, a private car, only occasionally for most people.

But the bad news is - 22-25% after 40,000 miles? So I assume that will extrapolate out to ~ 50% reduction after 80,000 miles? I'd assume a taxi/fleet would hit that in just 2-3 years? So an 80~100 mile range Leaf is now only a 40~50 mile range, meaning more frequent stops 1/2 hour quick charge stops?

As a side note - I really think that series hybrids ('range extended' EVs - similar to the Chevy Volt)will surpass EVs for the larger market. They only need a small battery pack, enough to handle acceleration, then let the power plant (ICE, turbine, other?) run at a single optimal speed to keep the batteries charged. No range restrictions, not even a need for a plug at all. ICE are not at a standstill - new materials, even new ICE designs (5-6 stroke approach, to draw energy out of the waste heat with an extra 'passive' power stroke), or other changes that might only make sense for an engine designed to run at one speed/load like the engine in a series hybrid. Or maybe micro-turbines made from ceramics? Something else?

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrRoy View Post
.. Also, if the electricity was generated from fossil fuel then you have lost a lot of the supposed benefit from the get go.
And in most cases, almost all the energy used to charge EVs is fossil fuel. As I've discussed, a fleet of EVs is an added load on the grid, and that takes added energy into the grid. So even if a grid can claim they are @ 50% renewable energy (just for example, a high figure), that is all they've got. Add a fleet of EVs to that, and they have already used their renewables, there is no more available, so they need to keep their coal plants running a bit higher/longer, or crank up the gas plants. It's a marginal production issue, not average.

It's a little more complicated than that - there are occasional excesses of wind power available at night in some areas, but I don't think this happens often enough, or in a wide enough area, to make a big difference in the average power that would be consumed by a fleet of EVs.

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 12:00 PM   #24
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
Actually they are related. Predicted reliability was a part of the 103/100 overall score (see below). The 103/100 was based on a predicted "average" reliability, CR has revised that to "worse-than-average."
...
No, they are not.
The "Recommended Buy" rating was removed due to the reliability.
The 103/100 rating was written and acknowledged the reliability issue (in a linked update) and discussed how reliability is not taken into account in the 103/100 rating.

Tesla Model S P85D Earns Top Road Test Score - Consumer Reports

Quote:
It’s also important to note that our Rating doesn’t include the Tesla’s reliability. The Model S has average reliability, according to our owner-survey responses. (Update—October 20, 2015: Read our latest survey results on Tesla's reliability.)

That said, the Tesla Model S P85D is an automotive milepost. It’s a remarkable car that paves a new, unorthodox course, and it’s a powerful statement of American startup ingenuity.
This is really getting into the weeds though.
EVs have some of the highest owner loyalty numbers around. Even with lower than average reliability, the Tesla still has the highest reliability score of any car.
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 12:07 PM   #25
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by folivier View Post
When we travel we typically drive 8 hours which is about 600 miles. So until EVs can match the range I'm not interested.

Good point. And, I think it's possible that some EV owners may decide to rent a gasoline powered car just for those occasions if they only occur a few times year.
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 12:08 PM   #26
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixonge View Post
"A shift is under way that will lead to widespread adoption of EVs in the next decade."

An analysis from Bloomberg New Energy Finance

Here?s How Electric Cars Will Cause the Next Oil Crisis

I think the headline is a bit over the top, but there are some pretty thorough numbers in that article.
I take it the writer thinks an oil price crash is a crisis. Not me. It's a godsend. Ask the lower economic 75%. Why high prices for anything useful escapes me.
__________________
gerntz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 12:13 PM   #27
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Chuckanut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: West of the Mississippi
Posts: 6,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post

And in most cases, almost all the energy used to charge EVs is fossil fuel. As I've discussed, a fleet of EVs is an added load on the grid, and that takes
This reminds me of a news show I watched a few years ago about a husband/wife pair of environmentalists. She was lobbying to close down the coal generation plants that her community used to get electricity. In the mean time her husband was converting a formerly ICE powered car to be an all electric vehicle. !?!?!?!?!!?
__________________
The worst decisions are usually made in times of anger and impatience.
Chuckanut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 12:14 PM   #28
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
I was thinking that regular rapid charging would significantly degrade the battery, but this real-world test indicates it's not a huge factor (but it's a good news / bad news story):
...
Keep in mind, this is a worst case scenario and can't be generalized to all EVs or even newer Leafs.

The study was of 4 2013 Leafs in Pheonix.
Most EVs have a better battery management system than the Leaf, and Leafs in more temperate or even less sunny areas have much less battery degradation.

In addition, Nissan has adapted their batteries due to capacity loss in hot climates.

For our Tesla, with 65,000 miles we have lost less than 10% range.

Was the 22%/25% loss a serious issue? Certainly. It was not typical then and is less of an issue now. For other brands, it is non-existent.
__________________
"We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.
(Ancient Indian Proverb)"
Zathras is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 12:28 PM   #29
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Lsbcal's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: west coast, hi there!
Posts: 5,686
I'm just wondering about all this focus on the Energy industry and fuel costs. I looked up the share of Energy in the Total Stock Market Index and it is 6%.

Now autos are perhaps in the consumer cyclicals which is another 12%. But although the energy source controls the car design to a good degree, it is still just an input I would think. Ditto for airlines, just an input although certainly a critical one. See sector percentages here:
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=VTSMX®ion=USA&culture=en-US

So how to think of this? Is it merely a 6% issue? Or is there another way to size it up?

P.S. Apologies is this is OT. I'll create a separate thread if the OP wants me too or others think it should be done.
__________________
Lsbcal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 01:11 PM   #30
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Htown Harry's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,516
Quote:
Originally Posted by marko View Post
A bit off topic but...I'm not that old (63) but I can remember when I was a young'un there was an old couple in my town who had an original electric car! It was maroon, was an open carriage and open spoke wheels. I can still see the old guy driving it with a straw hat and navy blue blazer.
Maybe a 1902 Waverly?
__________________
No doubt a continuous prosperity, though spendthrift, is preferable to an economy thriftily moral, though lean. Nevertheless, that prosperity would seem more soundly shored if, by a saving grace, more of us had the grace to save.

Life Magazine editorial, 1956
Htown Harry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 02:18 PM   #31
Moderator Emeritus
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,929
Oh boy. Don't forget to remind us that no matter what happens, all current costs, market factors, and tech will remain stagnant for all eternity, and besides, electric power is the worst polluting energy source.

Ox carts are the real next wave in transportation, other than those nifty chairs carried by a team of indentured servants. Let's bring back the good old days!


Sent from my iPhone using Early Retirement Forum
__________________
M Paquette is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 03:29 PM   #32
Moderator
Walt34's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Eastern WV Panhandle
Posts: 16,539
Quote:
Originally Posted by dixonge View Post
Why do you think there is no rapid recharge? It's a bit underwhelming for shorter-range cars, but both range and charge time are continually improving...
Oh, there's little doubt they will continue to improve and at some point electrics may well be good enough and cheap enough to replace petroleum fueled vehicles. But I don't expect to see that happen in my lifetime. Maybe I'm mistaken - I'd actually like to drive one, but they're not "there" yet for me.
__________________
I heard the call to do nothing. So I answered it.
Walt34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 03:56 PM   #33
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
HFWR's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Lawn chair in Texas
Posts: 12,964
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walt34 View Post
Oh, there's little doubt they will continue to improve and at some point electrics may well be good enough and cheap enough to replace petroleum fueled vehicles. But I don't expect to see that happen in my lifetime. Maybe I'm mistaken - I'd actually like to drive one, but they're not "there" yet for me.

When electricity is "too cheap to meter"...
__________________
Have Funds, Will Retire

...not doing anything of true substance...
HFWR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 04:01 PM   #34
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
travelover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 9,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by HFWR View Post
When electricity is "too cheap to meter"...
Ha! That will never happen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/09/bu...ectricity.html
__________________
Yes, I have achieved work / life balance.
travelover is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 07:20 PM   #35
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
Keep in mind, this is a worst case scenario and can't be generalized to all EVs or even newer Leafs.

The study was of 4 2013 Leafs in Pheonix.
Most EVs have a better battery management system than the Leaf, ...
And most EVs are far more expensive as well. I suspect that some of that better battery management comes at a cost?

Quote:
... Was the 22%/25% loss a serious issue? Certainly. It was not typical then and is less of an issue now.
I realize it isn't typical for the average customer. But the context of my post had to do with the article talking about EVs for Uber-like or fleet services. A car for hire will have much greater than average miles per year, and much greater need for fast charging. But the 22% from standard charging in 40,000 miles is significant, and pretty bad if that doubles by 80,000 miles.

Do you have any data at the level that I presented ( a controlled, rigorous study), to show that this is less of an issue for Uber-like or fleet mileage for newer models?

-ERD50
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-19-2016, 07:51 PM   #36
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by M Paquette View Post
Oh boy. Don't forget to remind us that no matter what happens, all current costs, market factors, and tech will remain stagnant for all eternity, ...
ummm, who is that straw-man being directed at?


Quote:
... and besides, electric power is the worst polluting energy source.
Well, since you brought it up, I've shared this chart before from the National Academy of Sciences:

It does show that under many scenarios, powering a car with electricity from the grid is far worse than powering a car with fossil fuel using an ICE/hybrid.

Even using the present 'average grid', total pollution is far worse for an EV. And as I mentioned, averages are not even relevant - EVs add demand to the grid, we won't have enough renewables to power all of the grid for the foreseeable future, so that means the added EV demand must be met with other power - likely fossil and/or nukes. We don't seem to be bringing more nukes on line, so that leaves fossil. EVs powered by NG electric provide a modest improvement over present ICE/hybrids (but hybrids are not standing still either), but mix just a wee bit of coal in there, and you are negative again. Even at that, it's just a modest improvement.

If you have data to the contrary, I'd be interested. But I see far too many Pollyanna articles about the grid turning green overnight, or that mistakenly apply averages to the power mix, where marginal power generation (just like marginal tax rates) is the key metric.

clip from: Life cycle air quality impacts of conventional and alternative light-duty transportation in the United States

-ERD50
Attached Images
File Type: png EV-grid-externalities - from NAS Evs and Coal -- .png (53.0 KB, 14 views)
__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 08:48 AM   #37
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
The Model S is extremely competitive in its class (large luxury cars). It is outselling the Mercedes S class, BMW7 series, Audi A8 (and I believe A7).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Midpack View Post
Indeed. Maybe we'll see how that translates to the mainstream one day.
#1 Large Luxury Car In US = Tesla Model S (2015 Sales Comparison) | CleanTechnica
So according to the link above Tesla's Model S outsold ever other luxury car in the U.S. by a wide margin; selling 14% more vehicles than the Mercedes S Class and 170% more units than the next closest competitor (BMW 7) in 2015.

Now what's shocking about that is the Model S was only introduced in June 2012. So it went from 0 to outselling the 60-year luxury leader in 2.5 years.

And Tesla itself has only been selling cars for about 8 years.

That is beyond impressive.

Meanwhile, they're slated to introduce a $35,000 coup as early as next year. That's still in the "luxury" category but it will compete with other mass market luxury vehicles like the Audi A4. So we'll soon have a test as to whether EVs have broader market appeal.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 08:56 AM   #38
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zathras View Post
No, they won't work well for everyone. They don't have to though, they only have to work well for enough people to lower demand for gasoline by a similar amount as the supply glut, which is the whole point of the article.
Absolutely. EV's won't work for everyone, but they will work for a shockingly large part of the population. Most folks don't drive 8 hours per day or live in areas with -40 degree temps so mentioning those factors is a bit of a red herring.

In fact, according to the 2015 census "Cities are home to 62.7% of the population, but comprise just 3.5% of land area."

And because commodity prices are set at the margin, even if half the population keeps driving gassers the half that doesn't can still clip a huge amount off of peak oil prices.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 09:30 AM   #39
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
Gone4Good's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by ERD50 View Post
Well, since you brought it up, I've shared this chart before from the National Academy of Sciences:

It does show that under many scenarios, powering a car with electricity from the grid is far worse than powering a car with fossil fuel using an ICE/hybrid.

Even using the present 'average grid', total pollution is far worse for an EV. And as I mentioned, averages are not even relevant - EVs add demand to the grid, we won't have enough renewables to power all of the grid for the foreseeable future, so that means the added EV demand must be met with other power - likely fossil and/or nukes. . . .
That's an interesting chart and an eye opener to boot.

But I'm wondering if your analysis that follows is quite right. I agree that using the "average grid pollution" isn't the right approach to measure the impact of all-electric EVs unless the grid and utilization stays constant. But that isn't what's happening.

My thinking is that the environmental impact of new electricity demand from EVs should be measured by the new power supply that is installed to meet that demand. And newly installed capacity is decidedly more green than legacy infrastructure.

Quote:
In 2015, electric generating companies expect to add more than 20 gigawatts (GW) of utility-scale generating capacity to the power grid. The additions are dominated by wind (9.8 GW), natural gas (6.3 GW), and solar (2.2 GW), which combine to make up 91% of total additions. . . .Nearly 16 GW of generating capacity is expected to retire in 2015, 81% of which (12.9 GW) is coal-fired generation.


So if you're comparing the marginal impact of new EVs powered by the marginal production capacity added to meet new electricity demand, the result looks a lot more like the EV / WWS bar in your graph than the EV / Grid Average one.
__________________
Retired early, traveling perpetually.
Gone4Good is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-20-2016, 10:06 AM   #40
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso)
Give me a forum ...
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Northern IL
Posts: 18,281
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gone4Good View Post
That's an interesting chart and an eye opener to boot.

But I'm wondering if your analysis that follows is quite right. I agree that using the "average grid pollution" isn't the right approach to measure the impact of all-electric EVs unless the grid and utilization stays constant. But that isn't what's happening.

My thinking is that the environmental impact of new electricity demand from EVs should be measured by the new power supply that is installed to meet that demand. And newly installed capacity is ....

So if you're comparing the marginal impact of new EVs powered by the marginal production capacity added to meet new electricity demand, the result looks a lot more like the EV / WWS bar in your graph than the EV / Grid Average one.
Thanks for that reasoned response, but I still feel strongly that my original point holds. Look at it this way:


Let's say that all the new power coming on to a grid is green. That's good. And just for numbers, let's say that particular grid went from 20% RE to 40% RE over some time period. And lets also say (just for simplicity, it really doesn't matter much), that the demand for electricity (outside of EVs) remained static.

So now we add in the demand for EVs (let's say 10% to demonstrate the numbers). That grid gets 40% of it's average power from RE. But now, we add demand - how does that demand get filled? There is no more RE available - it is all accounted for. RE is always used first, as there is no marginal cost to it, no fuel costs. It's all used, so they need to crank up other sources to charge those EVs.

As I said earlier - it's a little more complex than that. There may be occasional times with an excess of RE on the grid (wind power at night), so that could go to charging EVs. But I think we are a very long way from that happening on a regular enough basis to make much of a dent in the average fossil power that an EV would consume.

When we get to the point of having a regular, reliable excess of RE power available, then things change. But that is so far out that much could change before then I think.

And to un-simplify my earlier statement, now that the point is made - even if demand on the grid changes, EVs will always be an added demand, and must be evaluated on that marginal power basis. So if my hypothetical grid had the demand from other sources drop in half, it would still be 'only' 80% RE, and the added demand for an EV fleet would still need some non-RE sources, right?

-ERD50
__________________

__________________
ERD50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Great Senior Sell-Off Could Cause the Next Housing Crisis zedd FIRE and Money 69 04-14-2013 05:59 PM

 

 
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:38 AM.
 
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.