Thoughts on TESLA

[bobandsherry]

Tesla may find it a challenge to remain an independent company, analyst says

Perhaps a clueless analyst prediction, but market certainly took it serious with about $15 drop shortly after this was released.

 

[ERD50]

Natural gas electric generation will have to do until RE is practical and capable of replacing it. At worst, this is an environmentally neutral solution because new natural gas plants are very efficient (relatively speaking). Now, this may not be an option in states like California where any attempt to build a carbon based power plant is verboten, but most states will continue to beef-up their electric grid by this method, as required. Where there is demand there will be supply.

It's not an "at worst" case to be neutral, you need to power the EVs at very near 100% NG to be neutral with a good hybrid. I'll repeat it - that chart was published in 2014, hybrids have improved since then, and indications are they will continue to improve. Probably faster than the grid moves to co-gen.

But give and take some, that makes EVs ~ neutral. Yet, we get all this hype from Musk, greenies, and the government that they are some sort of 'solution'.

So even if they are marginally better, to make any significant difference, we need to have a very high % of EVs on the road. But that means lots of people need access to chargers, and I think it was estimated earlier, we would need to produce something like 40% more electricity. Well, the RE portion of that can only grow so fast, so EVs actually slow down how fast we can get to 100% RE (or any other high number). If you make the pie bigger, RE becomes a smaller slice.

It just seems like so much effort for something that is ~ neutral. While hybrids are here today, don't require the infrastructure, and don't have the same limits. So buy an EV if you want, just don't try to impress me with how clean they are, and claim that makes them inevitable, the numbers just don't stand up to scrutiny.

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

Tesla may find it a challenge to remain an independent company, analyst says

Perhaps a clueless analyst prediction, but market certainly took it serious with about $15 drop shortly after this was released.

Time to buy.

 

[ERD50]

I was just thinking about how, a few years ago, the environmentalist/greenies were all screaming at us to replace our filament light bulbs with CFLs. They told us about how these old bulbs use more electricity than a CFL, and told us about how dirty that electricity was, that the coal plants released more mercury than was in the CFL.

So replacing a 60W Edison bulb with a ~ 13 watt CFL was going to save us from all this dirty electricity, and save the planet. Now they want you to plug in an EV, which draws enough on one charge to light that bulb for 1500 hours, and praise this as being 'green'. Hmmmm?

The bulb used dirty power, the EV uses clean power? How does the electric utility 'know' to only send 'clean' power to the EV? Amazing!

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

I was just thinking about how, a few years ago, the environmentalist/greenies were all screaming at us to replace our filament light bulbs with CFLs. They told us about how these old bulbs use more electricity than a CFL, and told us about how dirty that electricity was, that the coal plants released more mercury than was in the CFL.

So replacing a 60W Edison bulb with a ~ 13 watt CFL was going to save us from all this dirty electricity, and save the planet. Now they want you to plug in an EV, which draws enough on one charge to light that bulb for 1500 hours, and praise this as being 'green'. Hmmmm?

The bulb used dirty power, the EV uses clean power? How does the electric utility 'know' to only send 'clean' power to the EV? Amazing!-ERD50

I won't defend CFL; they were horrible, but LEDs are saving huge amounts of energy and have made incandescent a thing of the past. In a way (intentional or unintentional) you are arguing that only large shifts to save are worth the effort. I think this is where we part paths. Any incremental improvement, voluntarily taken, is a good thing in my book.

Even if we need new natural gas plants to supplement the current electricity producers, the overall pollution levels (carbon emissions) will be down when enough ICE cars are replaced with EV (I include hybrids in this mix, as well).

I know we have quibbled on this point before, but the overall mix is near neutral. The incremental improvement will accelerate as the older coal and gas plants are replaced over time while EV use increases over time. This will be a continuous (if slow) improvement. That is plenty good for me when you add in the fact that I will have a better performing car and less maintenance.

 

[dixonge]

I was just thinking about how, a few years ago, the environmentalist/greenies were all screaming at us to replace our filament light bulbs with CFLs.

Screaming greenies? Seriously? Who hurt you? lol

They told us about how these old bulbs use more electricity than a CFL, and told us about how dirty that electricity was, that the coal plants released more mercury than was in the CFL.

So replacing a 60W Edison bulb with a ~ 13 watt CFL was going to save us from all this dirty electricity, and save the planet. Now they want you to plug in an EV, which draws enough on one charge to light that bulb for 1500 hours, and praise this as being 'green'. Hmmmm?

The bulb used dirty power, the EV uses clean power? How does the electric utility 'know' to only send 'clean' power to the EV? Amazing!

-ERD50

You must have missed the whole renewable energy trend?


https://grist.org/article/coals-death-spiral-in-3-charts/


Also, when the shift to CFL was underway, EV's were still just a pipe dream. Put solar on your supercharger or home, voila. Problem solved, imagined contradiction disappear...

 

[samclem]

Any incremental improvement, voluntarily taken, is a good thing in my book.

I think we may be pushing the boundaries of "voluntary" when we look at things like CAFE standards, $7500 government incentives (targeted to a specific technology, not a specific result), HOV lane restrictions, etc. If "voluntary" means "in response to a free market", then we aren't in that situation. There may be justifiable reasons for govt to get involved (e.g. in order to reduce negative externalities by making them internal to the cost of the good/service), but that's not the approach we typically see.

 

[oneill225]

I think we may be pushing the boundaries of "voluntary" when we look at things like CAFE standards, $7500 government incentives (targeted to a specific technology, not a specific result), HOV lane restrictions, etc. If "voluntary" means "in response to a free market", then we aren't in that situation. There may be justifiable reasons for govt to get involved (e.g. in order to reduce negative externalities by making them internal to the cost of the good/service), but that's not the approach we typically see.

I do not disagree, but I can live with limited "incentives" that encourage voluntary movements that have long term benefits outweighing the short term downside (cost to those not receiving the benefit). If you believe that air pollution is a long term problem largely driven (no pun intended) by ICE cars, then it makes some sense. That is another topic, however.

As I have said we are talking about the inevitable, here. EVs are going to replace ICE at an ever increasing rate. The only question is how fast and when to start believing enough to invest in companies like Tesla. I am there, now. I think you still need some convincing. Were you also slow to adopt LEDs based on your CFL experience? The train has left the station.

 

[ERD50]

I won't defend CFL; they were horrible, but LEDs are saving huge amounts of energy and have made incandescent a thing of the past. ...

I wasn't asking you to defend CFLs. The point was the greenies told us electrical power was dirty when we used it for a light bulb, but now it's clean when we use it for an EV. You didn't address that. The grid hasn't changed enough to provide clean energy for extra demand from EVs. We need an excess of clean energy for that.

I agree, LEDS are far superior to CFLs, but the energy savings compared to CFL are slight, so the real energy issue was back when it was CFL versus filament. so that's why I used CFL as a reference point.

.... In a way (intentional or unintentional) you are arguing that only large shifts to save are worth the effort. I think this is where we part paths. Any incremental improvement, voluntarily taken, is a good thing in my book ...

I'm absolutely not saying that. Just the opposite. I'm a big fan of the phrase "perfect is the enemy of good".

With the current grid, it appears that the choice of a modern hybrid will be better than an EV, and that will be true for many years. And they are more 'usable' for a larger % of the population, so overall better improvement.

I keep saying,.. well, I've already said it several times, this is getting overly circular. Short version, EVs when we have a view of clean energy for them.

.... Even if we need new natural gas plants to supplement the current electricity producers, the overall pollution levels (carbon emissions) will be down when enough ICE cars are replaced with EV (I include hybrids in this mix, as well). ...

I don't see it. Instead of saying it, show me how this will happen. Since even at 100% NG the hybrid may be better than an EV, it's tough to see how an EV can be clearly better.

.... I know we have quibbled on this point before, but the overall mix is near neutral. The incremental improvement will accelerate as the older coal and gas plants are replaced over time while EV use increases over time. This will be a continuous (if slow) improvement. That is plenty good for me when you add in the fact that I will have a better performing car and less maintenance.

It's not a quibble, it's an important point. Hybrids are improving too, so it isn't clear at all that things will shift to favor EVs environmentally, for a very long time.

I was just thinking about how, a few years ago, the environmentalist/greenies were all screaming at us to replace our filament light bulbs with CFLs.

Screaming greenies? Seriously? Who hurt you? lol ...

Screaming greenies have hurt all of us. Seriously.

In the 80's, screaming greenies fought nuclear. The result is we had more coal for much longer. We could have been like France, with 80% of our power from Nuclear.

Every time they screamed "No Nukes", they were not aware that they were also screaming "More Dirty Coal! More deaths! More acid rain! More CO2!". One must consider the consequences of the alternatives.

...You must have missed the whole renewable energy trend?

https://grist.org/article/coals-death-spiral-in-3-charts/

...

And you have missed the whole discussion of marginal power to charge an EV. The only thing that really matters with respect to EVs and the grid is - how is the extra marginal power generated. It isn't from RE, and won't be until we have a regular (sound familiar?), steady, predictable supply of excess RE, enough to charge all these EVs most of the time. Show me a graph of that.

... Also, when the shift to CFL was underway, EV's were still just a pipe dream. Put solar on your supercharger or home, voila. Problem solved, imagined contradiction disappear...

Not solved. Solar needs to be expanded by huge amounts before grids across the country have an excess of power. Solar panels on your roof or at a Supercharger can't do that. Until that excess is there, solar will help throttle down a peaker plant - plug in your EV, and that peaker now needs to start up again. In either case, the EV is buring fossil fuel (assuming an NG peaker).

No contradiction.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

I ... If you believe that air pollution is a long term problem largely driven (no pun intended) by ICE cars, then it makes some sense. ....

No! "Belief" is not enough. It actually has to be true to make sense, backed by facts.

-ERD50

 

[kcowan]

CFLs turned out to be an interim step that was not living up to its claims. LEDs seem to be the long term solution. Maybe Tesla is just the catalyst needed to make hybrids into mainstream.

 

[NW-Bound]

...Put solar on your supercharger or home, voila. Problem solved, imagined contradiction disappear...

Umm... not so fast. What do you do when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow?

A while back, I cited an MIT Technology Review paper that showed that Germany's carbon emission rose in 2015, because they had to run the peakers on days when their renewable generation went idle.

See: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/.

I like solar power a lot, but until we have dirt cheap storage, we will have trouble on just a few days of the year where the renewable power is out, even though the rest of the year we can produce excess power.

I have linked some charts showing days when Germany is completely out of renewable power, alternating with days when they have more than enough.

We do not even have economical storage for nightly use, the power that we can produce so cheaply during the day, let alone enough storage for a few days, or for seasonal variations.

 

[Running_Man]

Tesla may find it a challenge to remain an independent company, analyst says

Perhaps a clueless analyst prediction, but market certainly took it serious with about $15 drop shortly after this was released.

Market drop is due to criminal probe into Elon Musk being announced for possible hit at shorts. There are two downsides to this 1) they can also look at prior announcements to determine if there is a pattern of deception and fraud to boost stock price and 2) From Charles Gasparino on Twitter: "on US Atty looking at @Tesla $TSLA: almost pro forma given the @SEC_Enforcement investigation BUT will guarantee a deep dive by investigators into his emails and if there's one that shows he was tweeting funding secured merely to screw the shorts, he has a serious criminal issue"

 

[dixonge]

Screaming greenies have hurt all of us. Seriously.

In the 80's, screaming greenies fought nuclear. The result is we had more coal for much longer. We could have been like France, with 80% of our power from Nuclear.

Every time they screamed "No Nukes", they were not aware that they were also screaming "More Dirty Coal! More deaths! More acid rain! More CO2!". One must consider the consequences of the alternatives.

And you have missed the whole discussion of marginal power to charge an EV. The only thing that really matters with respect to EVs and the grid is - how is the extra marginal power generated. It isn't from RE, and won't be until we have a regular (sound familiar?), steady, predictable supply of excess RE, enough to charge all these EVs most of the time. Show me a graph of that.

Not solved. Solar needs to be expanded by huge amounts before grids across the country have an excess of power. Solar panels on your roof or at a Supercharger can't do that. Until that excess is there, solar will help throttle down a peaker plant - plug in your EV, and that peaker now needs to start up again. In either case, the EV is buring fossil fuel (assuming an NG peaker).

No contradiction.

-ERD50

Well, from your use of insulting language to your entire premise and follow-up It's obvious there's no use to continue conversing on this topic. I am quite literally in disagreement with every one of these assertions/statements. Besides, based on your comments you would see anything I said as 'screaming' so why read or respond?

 

[oneill225]

I wasn't asking you to defend CFLs. The point was the greenies told us electrical power was dirty when we used it for a light bulb, but now it's clean when we use it for an EV. You didn't address that. The grid hasn't changed enough to provide clean energy for extra demand from EVs. We need an excess of clean energy for that.

Good, because I am not defending them. Electric power is dirty when it comes from coal and gas. The "greenies" are stating fact when they say this. I am not proclaiming it clean except on a relative basis compared to ICE and older coal plants.

Your focus on "marginal" power is misplaced. When additional power is needed it will come from new gas plants. The fact that this less polluting power is mixed in with all the older and dirtier power is irrelevant. Those plants will be cranking out the same emissions as before any new gas plant is fired up. Overall, the grid will be less and less polluting over time.

This leaves only the question of how clean the additional electricity is relative to how many polluting ICE (and ultimately hybrids) are taken off the roads as a result. I would note that just as with ICE and hybrids, natural gas electric production is becoming more efficient and less polluting. I do not buy your hypothesis that ICE and hybrids will ever provide a cleaner alternative to EV powered by natural gas electricity. If you know of some definitive study to the contrary I will remain open minded.

 

[dixonge]

Umm... not so fast. What do you do when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow?

Use your batteries, then the grid, of course. Why?

A while back, I cited an MIT Technology Review paper that showed that Germany's carbon emission rose in 2015, because they had to run the peakers on days when their renewable generation went idle.

See: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/601514/germany-runs-up-against-the-limits-of-renewables/.

Lots of dissent in the comments, and I can see why.

I like solar power a lot, but until we have dirt cheap storage, we will have trouble on just a few days of the year where the renewable power is out, even though the rest of the year we can produce excess power.

I have linked some charts showing days when Germany is completely out of renewable power, alternating with days when they have more than enough.

We do not even have economical storage for nightly use, the power that we can produce so cheaply during the day, let alone enough storage for a few days, or for seasonal variations.

Well I guess we should just shut down all the solar and wind and give up then? OR - do we just keep improving and upgrading until we've solved all those problems? Why is 'having trouble' a few days of the year a big deal?

 

[oneill225]

Tesla vs ICE

Just one of the reasons why Tesla and EVs are the future:

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

 

[dixonge]

Just one of the reasons why Tesla and EVs are the future:

https://www.afdc.energy.gov/vehicles/electric_emissions.php

So EV's reduce CO2 by HALF or more on a national average, even with the current mix of clean/dirty electricity generation? Wow!

 

[NW-Bound]

Use your batteries, then the grid, of course. Why?

In order to use the grid, well, where does that power come from? We then have to maintain the same power plants that we now have, and keep them idle for when we need them. It's costly.

Well I guess we should just shut down all the solar and wind and give up then? OR - do we just keep improving and upgrading until we've solved all those problems? Why is 'having trouble' a few days of the year a big deal?

No, where did anyone say to shut down all RE?

The point is that, let's be careful and not going gunho without thinking about all the ramifications. We can already build cheap solar cells and wind generators, but do not know where to stuff all that power.

About "having trouble" a few days of the year, imagine having brownouts a few days each year. Food spoiled, EVs cannot drive, ACs do not run, heaters do not work, etc... People do not want to lose power routinely several days each year.

 

[ERD50]

Good, because I am not defending them. Electric power is dirty when it comes from coal and gas. The "greenies" are stating fact when they say this. I am not proclaiming it clean except on a relative basis compared to ICE and older coal plants. .. ... Your focus on "marginal" power is misplaced. When additional power is needed it will come from new gas plants...

And I have been comparing ICE/hybrid to EV on NG.

.... I would note that just as with ICE and hybrids, natural gas electric production is becoming more efficient and less polluting. I do not buy your hypothesis that ICE and hybrids will ever provide a cleaner alternative to EV powered by natural gas electricity. If you know of some definitive study to the contrary I will remain open minded.

I will go so far as to say it's hard to say if the rise of co-gen NG will be greater than the rise in hybrid efficiency. Yes, it could go either way. My real point is, there certainly isn't a big delta, and it isn't clear which will 'win'. Not enough to hold EVs up as some "Silver Bullet". The way I look at it, since just about everyone can use a hybrid, they don't need charger access, we don't need infrastructure changes, it just seems to me that hybrids can provide more benefit, faster than EVs.

I would like to find some more definitive numbers, but I suspect it won't be easy. Much of what I find about the grid is either overly-simplistic, or so much industry talk, that I can't follow it. Any help would be appreciated.

Also, I have what I think is some good (not 'perfect') news with regards to RE. I'll post later in that other thread, probably more appropriate there.

-ERD50

 

[Texas Proud]

I do not disagree, but I can live with limited "incentives" that encourage voluntary movements that have long term benefits outweighing the short term downside (cost to those not receiving the benefit). If you believe that air pollution is a long term problem largely driven (no pun intended) by ICE cars, then it makes some sense. That is another topic, however.

As I have said we are talking about the inevitable, here. EVs are going to replace ICE at an ever increasing rate. The only question is how fast and when to start believing enough to invest in companies like Tesla. I am there, now. I think you still need some convincing. Were you also slow to adopt LEDs based on your CFL experience? The train has left the station.

Don't you think it would be better to tax the bad behavior than to reward the good? IOW, with the lights... tax the old regular bulbs at $1 each and let us have a choice... I hated the CFLs but did not have much choice (well, I did as I bought some before they went away)... NONE, and I repeat NONE lasted as long as a regular incandescent bulb... and the one I have in my high ceiling that can be dimmed take way too long to heat up and produce a good light... they will be there for years as I hardly ever use those lights, but when I want to I have to wait...


SOOO, instead of giving someone $7500 to buy an electric, raise the tax on gas... this will put the full cost to the buyer and they will adjust accordingly... some will not care as they drive so little it does not affect them and they like their big gas guzzling car...

 

[dixonge]

The point is that, let's be careful and not going gunho without thinking about all the ramifications.

Who is doing that?

About "having trouble" a few days of the year, imagine having brownouts a few days each year. Food spoiled, EVs cannot drive, etc... ACs do not run, heaters do not work. People do not want to have to lose power routinely several days each year.

We've already had that scenario happen on multiple occasions in the U.S., long before solar and wind came along. Why would anyone degrade the system to that point again? We can transition without these power loss scenarios you describe...

 

[ERD50]

I .... We can already build cheap solar cells and wind generators, but do not know where to stuff all that power. ....

Gotta run soon, I'll post to the RE thread later, but as I alluded in another post, the "storage problem" might not be as bad as I was thinking (cost wise). But the 'solution' is to forget about storage. More later...

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

Here's an example. I have been working on a homebrew solar+storage system with 22kWh. Just for fun. Not sure yet about profit.

In order to save enough energy to use at night in the summer when the AC is needed nearly 24 hrs, I would need 50 to 60 kWh worth of storage. That's about the capacity of 4 Tesla Powerwalls. The cost for all that is more than $30K with installation.

And that is just for nightly storage. If you want to store enough for a few days, the battery may cost $100-200K. And if you have to replace them every few years, it is not at all economically feasible.

 

[ERD50]

Well, from your use of insulting language to your entire premise and follow-up It's obvious there's no use to continue conversing on this topic. I am quite literally in disagreement with every one of these assertions/statements. Besides, based on your comments you would see anything I said as 'screaming' so why read or respond?

I agree with you, there is no use to continue conversing on this topic if you are just going to say I'm wrong, without actually providing the facts and figures to challenge my statements.

I am quite literally in disagreement with every one of these assertions/statements.

France isn't 80% nukes? OK, hopefully you will allow for some rounding, I didn't look it up, I went from memory, confident I was 'close enough' for conversation - it is 76.3%. Excuse me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France

Nuclear power is the largest source of electricity in the country, with a generation of 416.8 TWh, or 76.3%[2] of the country's total production of 546 TWh, the highest percentage in the world.[3]

I didn't say you were 'screaming', I just referred to 'screaming greenies' in general
wrt CFL and no nukes.

-ERD50