Thoughts on TESLA

[bobandsherry]

And my head starts hurting again.... Lol. Thanks for the analysis ERD50.

 

[aja8888]

ERD50, thanks for the above research.

I have worked doing engineering projects at probably 50 U.S. and international refineries during my 30 years in the petrochemical industry. I can say that many of the larger refineries (and chemical plants) have partnered with CoGen facilities built on the refinery sites and produce a lot of their own energy from waste heat generated by refining (and also sell the excess power in some cases).

Musk is "off target" on this as you proved.

 

[JoeWras]

I kind of figured out the punch line after the beginning paragraphs of ERD's analysis.

It got me daydreaming... I wonder if Ricoh has Xerox copiers? Does HP use Lenovo computers? Does a petrochemical refinery use the electric grid as their primary source of power to run the refining process? Or for that matter, does an electric generating plant heat their offices with fuel oil?

 

[ncbill]

Back to Musk - I came across this in some searching, had seen it before, but maybe forgot that Musk had repeated it:

https://www.businessinsider.com/elo...-how-the-electric-car-got-its-revenge-2011-10



Well!!! As I have said, I'm technology agnostic, I believe in solutions. So if that were true, it seems obvious that we should stop driving petroleum based cars, and drive EVs, to the maximum extent possible/practical.

Wait a minute... "if" it were true? That was Elon Musk talking, he's clearly a very bright, well informed, successful guy, and this is his field. He must be right, right?

Well, I'm pretty skeptical of things that seem that obvious. I mean, why aren't we just doing it (going all EV) then? I recall looking up the number of gallons we refine in the US, and overall electrical consumption that goes to industry. I had read 6 kWh originally, and either number times the gallons of gasoline refined in the US just made up such a huge % of the total industrial consumption, that it just seemed hard to believe that it wasn't common knowledge.

So when I saw it again, I did a deeper dive and opened a spreadsheet instead of a napkin (lots of zeroes to keep track of). So here you go:

Sources:
Refined annual:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_refp2_dc_nus_mbbl_a.htm
Refined energy consumption annual:
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_capfuel_dcu_nus_a.htm

I added up the various fuels (in thous bbl), multiplied by 42 g/bbl * 1000 ( comes to ~ 1..26x10^11). Divide the purchased kWh (4.86x10^10) by those gallons, and we get...

not 5 kWh. Not even 0.5 kWh, but 0.385 kWh. That is 385 watt-hours, about enough to drive an EV 1 mile, not the 20 miles that Elon said. But we must believe Elon, right?

Another easy calculation (nowhere near so many zeroes to keep trak of!) to see if this is in the realm of reality...

The industrial average for a kWh is $0.0691 ( source: .www.statista.com/statistics/190680/...-estimates-for-retail-electricity-since-1970/). So 5 kWh per gallon would be ~ $0.35 per gallon - just for the electricity to refine that gallon of gasoline.

But this source ( https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/ ) says that the JULY 2018 average gas price was $2.85/gallon, with 15% going to refining costs, and 15% = $0.43. If electricity made up 80% of refinery costs, it just seems there would be more awareness of that.

Apparently, this all comes from some twist of some study that said it took 6 kWh of energy to refine a gallon of gasoline. But much of that energy comes from waste (or impractical to market) products of the refining process itself. It's not like you can run a Tesla on some thick goey tar-like substance.

But the EV fans just eat these numbers up w/o question, and beg our politicians to subsidize EVs "for the children". I suggest they learn some math - for the children!

-ERD50

What about the natural gas used to refine crude oil into final products?

Maybe he meant take that and use it in a combined-cycle power plant instead.

 

[aja8888]

What about the natural gas used to refine crude oil into final products?

Maybe he meant take that and use it in a combined-cycle power plant instead.

Natural gas is not used in any significant quantity in refining. What's generally used is a "fuel gas" stream refined off the crude oil to heat boilers and reactors.

According to 40 CFR 63.641, refinery fuel gas (RFG) means a gaseous mixture of methane, light hydrocarbons, hydrogen, and other miscellaneous species that is produced in the refining of crude oil and/or petrochemical processes and that is separated for use in boilers and process heaters throughout the refinery.

Natural gas is separated at the well head, dried, and typically compressed into a sales pipeline for use by utility and retail customers. Some natural gas producers pipeline the gas (methane) to plants that convert it to liquid products (propane, butane, etc).

Musk apparently is "playing on the ignorance" of the general public with his comments.

 

[NW-Bound]

I kind of figured out the punch line after the beginning paragraphs of ERD's analysis.

It got me daydreaming... I wonder if Ricoh has Xerox copiers? Does HP use Lenovo computers? Does a petrochemical refinery use the electric grid as their primary source of power to run the refining process? Or for that matter, does an electric generating plant heat their offices with fuel oil?

This reminds me of our stop at the Grand Coulee Dam in Western Washington State on our RV trip back from Alaska. I had not known that we were passing by this dam, but when seeing it in the middle of nowhere off the highway, had to stop to take a look. Because of its location, the dam does not have the number of visitors that Hoover Dam has.

We lingered there at the visitor center for several hours, watching all the documentary films that they showed consecutively in the theater. It was not just that the videos were all very interesting, but also because it was hot outside. Because of the heat, I wanted to stay until late before getting back to our RV to drive off to find a boondocking spot. Inside the center we were freezing our buns off.

Anyway, I told my wife that perhaps they didn't care that the thermostat was set so low because of all the electricity they got from the dam. Would they put in a power meter to charge themselves for the AC cost for the visitor center, or do they just lump it in the total electricity needed to operate the dam, which is a lot more?

 

[NW-Bound]

This reminds me of our stop at the Grand Coulee Dam in Western Washington State...

Meant to write Eastern Washington State...

 

[oneill225]

Hype goes both ways

Well!!! As I have said, I'm technology agnostic, I believe in solutions. So if that were true, it seems obvious that we should stop driving petroleum based cars, and drive EVs, to the maximum extent possible/practical.-ERD50

Sorry, ERD50, but you are no agnostic when it comes to EV vs ICE. Surely you must realize that whatever electricity is saved is still added to the EV "+" column. No agnostic would take such satisfaction in finding that a good thing is really just less of a good thing than claimed.

Hype in favor of EVs is no worse than those who selectively knock and minimize the benefits of EVs at every turn. The non-hyped benefits of EV over ICE have been laid out in detail throughout this thread and they clearly outweigh the non-hyped negatives thrown out by the naysayers.

I don't mind holding people accountable for their exaggerated claims, but the larger context is required if you do not want to be accused of doing the same for an opposite effect. I think the author of this article says it best:

"Battery EVs are a tremendous technology- one that will greatly help us toward a future which allows us to enjoy most if not all of the benefits we’ve derived from fossil energy, but without the GHG consequences. They will allow us to retain the freedom of individual transport, without discharging toxic emissions directly into the breathing zone of passersby. And the efficiency of the EV drivetrain and lithium-ion battery combination mean that we won’t have to build out as much expensive renewable infrastructure as we would if we were going to rely on other, less efficient renewable fuels such as biofuels or hydrogen- fuels which require more lossy steps of chemical or energy conversion. EVs don’t need hype or exaggerated claims to make them out to be more than they are: they can definitely stand on their own merits."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/so-exactly-how-much-electricity-does-take-produce-gallon-paul-martin

 

[Fedup]

I was righ by closing my puts, TESLA went back up today. Maybe when it goes up a little more, I might start another trade.

 

[Chuckanut]

I was righ by closing my puts, TESLA went back up today.

That must be the results of the Tesla owners in my neighborhood finding out that a SuperCharger station is being built nearby. They already have a nearly fanatical love of their car. I can just see them all hanging out at the SuperCharger station drinking cold brewed Amparo Pajoy coffee and exchanging stories about how great their cars are.

 

[kgtest]

Mine has a 36 gallon tank. What size did you get?

Same 36 gallons of diesel, but I meant North to south...I guess that's technically not across, that's down through?
So I exaggerated a tad lol.

 

[Fedup]

That must be the results of the Tesla owners in my neighborhood finding out that a SuperCharger station is being built nearby. They already have a nearly fanatical love of their car. I can just see them all hanging out at the SuperCharger station drinking cold brewed Amparo Pajoy coffee and exchanging stories about how great their cars are.

Haha, I’ve been noticing a few new TESLA in my hood too.
I’m hedging my bet, I have a high current charge in my garage just in case. It might affects resale value.

 

[ERD50]

Natural gas is not used in any significant quantity in refining. What's generally used is a "fuel gas" stream refined off the crude oil to heat boilers and reactors.



Natural gas is separated at the well head, dried, and typically compressed into a sales pipeline for use by utility and retail customers. Some natural gas producers pipeline the gas (methane) to plants that convert it to liquid products (propane, butane, etc).

Musk apparently is "playing on the ignorance" of the general public with his comments.

Thanks for that info. One of the fantastic things about the internet, and this forum in particular, is getting information straight from the people who have "been there- done that".

Another refinery related question I've had - if EVs actually did quickly go mainstream, and the demand for diesel/gasoline dropped to 50% of current, what would happen to the refining industry?

You would still have heating oil and jet fuel, but that's a small market relative to cars/trucks. Clearly, the price for gas/diesel would drop, and in turn make it tougher for EVs to compete (but lets say they still could). Can refineries be tweaked to provide a far higher ratio of heating oil/kerosene? I assume there are fairly tight limits on this?

And if overall demand for oil is down, doesn't that mean we have far less Natural Gas, or at least the price for NG would go up if that was the only product being extracted? Again, I'm assuming it's more efficient to harvest NG + oil, than to harvest NG alone, in many/most cases.

And with less NG available and/or much higher prices for NG, that's
going to affect electricity prices. The more we replace dirty coal, and bring on intermittent RE (solar/wind), the more we need to rely on NG to fill the gaps. The stage seems to be set for less expensive gas/diesel, and more expensive electricity?

Does that fit your view?

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

... Musk apparently is "playing on the ignorance" of the general public with his comments.

It really makes me wonder. I would think Musk is bright enough to see that number just can't be accurate. Or is it just laziness - he hears something that fits what he wants to believe, so just doesn't bother to question it? That's a stretch for me, I would think he would want to know that what he says is reasonably accurate, but who knows?

I do think that this is just stuff he can shovel to a non-technical public willing to lap up his words, and count on an 'appeal to authority'. And that is sad. If he has a point to make, make it legitimately. To do otherwise actually undermines the goals of the EV fans.

And I will also add - my analysis isn't the end-all be-all either. There are the deep dive numbers of the energy used to extract oil, and transport it to the refinery and to your local gas pump. But there is also that trail for the coal/NG/uranium, hydro-construction, distribution losses, etc to get electricity to the plug in a garage. I'd suspect that to be in favor of electricity, but I just don't think it is by all that much, there is only so much 'there' there, in the costs of refining and distirbution.

EV fans often talk about efficiency of the battery/motor ( 85% ?) which is impressive, versus ICE. But the big picture is the power plant ( 35%~45% efficiency, sometimes up to 60% with co-gen), then ~ 8% lost in distribution, and maybe 10% lost in charging the battery. All the sudden, the gap just isn't that great ( say .50 * .92 * .9 * .85 ~ 35%) , and it is closing (maybe closed) with ICE/hybrid improvements (new ICE designs ~ 40% with 50% in reach). Again, more details to calculate the 'costs' of getting fuel to the power plants and to the gas station, but I think it's clear this is no slam dunk in favor of EVs.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Sorry, ERD50, but you are no agnostic when it comes to EV vs ICE. Surely you must realize that whatever electricity is saved is still added to the EV "+" column. ....

What in my posts leads you to say that? Like Musk, saying it doesn't make it so. And in fact, I did acknowledge it, it's just that it is no where close to the number Musk threw out:

That is 385 watt-hours, about enough to drive an EV 1 mile, not the 20 miles that Elon said. But we must believe Elon, right?

... No agnostic would take such satisfaction in finding that a good thing is really just less of a good thing than claimed.

I take satisfaction in the truth, accurate, meaningful numbers. That is all. You seem to be reading something into that that is not there.

Hype in favor of EVs is no worse than those who selectively knock and minimize the benefits of EVs at every turn. The non-hyped benefits of EV over ICE have been laid out in detail throughout this thread and they clearly outweigh the non-hyped negatives thrown out by the naysayers. ...

Examples?

... I don't mind holding people accountable for their exaggerated claims, but the larger context is required if you do not want to be accused of doing the same for an opposite effect. ...

Then show me any over-hyped claim I made. You are making accusations, but I have not seen any refuting of the numbers with numbers and sources of your own.

.... I think the author of this article says it best:

"Battery EVs are a tremendous technology- one that will greatly help us toward a future which allows us to enjoy most if not all of the benefits we’ve derived from fossil energy, but without the GHG consequences. They will allow us to retain the freedom of individual transport, without discharging toxic emissions directly into the breathing zone of passersby. And the efficiency of the EV drivetrain and lithium-ion battery combination mean that we won’t have to build out as much expensive renewable infrastructure as we would if we were going to rely on other, less efficient renewable fuels such as biofuels or hydrogen- fuels which require more lossy steps of chemical or energy conversion. EVs don’t need hype or exaggerated claims to make them out to be more than they are: they can definitely stand on their own merits."
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/so-exactly-how-much-electricity-does-take-produce-gallon-paul-martin

Nice words - but the numbers? Did you read the article? He makes the same claim that I did with regard to Musk's statement:

"Elon’s Model S is a much heavier and larger car, so it consumes more like 400 Wh/mile and would only travel about 2 miles on that energy. Elon’s estimate is therefore out by an order of magnitude, and my “hype detector” was proven to be reasonably well calibrated. "
​

I mentioned ~ 1 EV mile on the electricity used to refine 1 gallon. Paul Martin came up with 2 miles, and, if I follow his logic (and I'm not 100% sure I am, so help me if you can), he's also including the waste products used by the refinery, and assuming we could generate electricity with those, in addition to the electricity not used to refine? Maybe, but I have to wonder if that is circular logic - would we have those waste products if we were not refining the oil in the first place? Regardless, I won't quibble over whether t is 1 mile or 2 miles per refined gallon (as I mentioned, there are other factors as well), the point is/was it isn't anywhere near close to the 20 miles that Elon proclaimed from on High.

I suspect the 1-2 miles is a pretty good first approximation, and captures the majority of it.

Regarding being agnostic - I am. I'm solution/results oriented. And I'll promote EVs for environmental purposes when they appear to be a clear solution. And I don't see that happening until (if/when) we have a regular, steady, predictable supply of an excess of clean energy, that can be utilized by EVs, so they have little dependence on fossil fuel. As I've pointed out, w/o an excess of clean energy, EVs add to the power demands, and if RE is used up (it is used first, as the 'fuel' is free), those EVs run mostly on fossil fuel. Averages don't matter. It would be good to grow the EV fleet to match that excess.

I don't see any path in the foreseeable future to a regular, steady, predictable supply of an excess of clean energy, that can be utilized by EVs. When that path becomes clear, we could start increasing the EV fleet to match - both will take time. No sense in putting EVs in place (for environmental reasons), until that day becomes clear. And no, we don't need them now to push development. Batteries are the main limiting factor, and there is plenty of motivation from other industries to push performance. The rest of the EV is just not that challenging, and engineers can learn plenty from the lower volumes being produced now.

All of the above is in relation to environmental causes. If you want to own an EV because you like the way it drives, or prefer plugging in at home to stopping at a gas station, then you should buy one, and you don't need to justify it to anyone. But I really am opposed to unfounded talk which leads to subsidies going to rich guys for expensive performance cars, based on some shaky environmental justification. Heck, if you favor EVs, you should reject sales subsidies as well. That money would be far more effective funding battery research directly. A few incremental sales of EVs, most of which would have sold anyway (maybe a little later?) just won't move the needle on R&D compared to direct investment in R&D.

Whew!

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

I don't see any path in the foreseeable future to a regular, steady, predictable supply of an excess of clean energy, that can be utilized by EVs. When that path becomes clear, we could start increasing the EV fleet to match - both will take time. No sense in putting EVs in place (for environmental reasons), until that day becomes clear. And no, we don't need them now to push development. Batteries are the main limiting factor, and there is plenty of motivation from other industries to push performance. The rest of the EV is just not that challenging, and engineers can learn plenty from the lower volumes being produced now.-ERD50

Okay. I will take you at your word that you just need to see excess (I would say additional) clean energy to fuel the EVs before getting off the fence.

You have previously agreed/stated that, even using today's "non-clean" energy generation, EV's are more efficient (environmentally speaking) than ICE vehicles. You like numbers, so how about the fact that the most modern electric plants are about 60% efficient and even the older dirtiest plants are more efficient than an ICE (estimated around 25%). Are you saying you prefer more emissions until there are no emissions? What am I missing?

 

[corn18]

EV is just an evolution on a theme: a car with a different motor. Wonder what the next revolution will be?

We walked around for thousands of years.

Then we rode around on animals for thousands of years.

Cars came along and replaced the animals.

Airplanes came along and shrunk the world.

I can't even imagine what the next revolutionary form of transportation might be. I hope it's a transporter. I hate sitting for hours waiting to get to my vacation spot. As long as it uses green energy

 

[NW-Bound]

... I can't even imagine what the next revolutionary form of transportation might be. I hope it's a transporter. I hate sitting for hours waiting to get to my vacation spot. As long as it uses green energy

Virtual reality, my friend.

Very cheap, and perhaps cubicle dwellers can even sneak a brief respite from tedious and boring work during a break or lunch.

 

[Cassius King]

I watched the entire video. Found it very informative and fascinating. I don't own Tesla stock, and didn't know much of Elon Musk prior to the interview.
He took one puff, from a cigarette/weed combo. It wasn't even entirely weed, mostly tobacco! And by puff, he didn't know how to smoke or inhale it. He was handed it and didn't know what to do with it. He looked like the kid trying to be cool and not turn it down. He even further went to say he doesn't smoke. People classifying him as a pothead CEO are on a witch-hunt.
He openly admits that it is not fun being him. His mind is constantly running, a million thoughts at a time. The guy is a genius and on another level. They all come off a bit odd.
He's passionate about mankind and people. Defending the judicial system, police officers and stating that the world needs more compassion and love. I don't think he's in this to steer investors or people the wrong way.
Of course he doesn't act like other CEO's. But then again, most other CEO's aren't trying to build electric cars and take people to Mars.
He's all about renewable energy. Solar. Taking fossil fuels from the ground and putting them in our atmosphere is a horrible idea. Impossible for anyone to not see this.

There is a very polar love it or hate it stance with Elon Musk and Tesla. After watching the video I'm still not an investor in Tesla stock. But at the same time I'm not going to bash the guy and publicly shame him for his actions. The world and mankind is better for having Elon Musk, we would be lucky to have many more like him.

Just my thoughts and summary after watching the video and really getting introduced to who Elon Musk is through it.

 

[ERD50]

... You have previously agreed/stated that, even using today's "non-clean" energy generation, EV's are more efficient (environmentally speaking) than ICE vehicles. ...

I did? Where did I say that? Hint - I did not say that!

Look back at post # 377:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f44/thoughts-on-tesla-86202-2.html#post2105129

That chart from the NAS shows that on 100% NG, an EV is a little better environmentally than a circa 2014 hybrid (which keep improving). But no grid is 100% NG, and most have some coal, and even a little coal in the mix will turn that EV worse than a good hybrid. That's what I said!

I think where you get confused is, I showed that with rough numbers, there isn;t much difference in efficiency between a good hybrid and an EV, after taking in (which must be done) the losses in generating the electrical power from fuel, distribution, and charging the battery. And some efficiency numbers you see for EVs is only measured from the battery, not the power from the wall (misses the charging and distribution losses).

You like numbers, so how about the fact that the most modern electric plants are about 60% efficient and even the older dirtiest plants are more efficient than an ICE (estimated around 25%). Are you saying you prefer more emissions until there are no emissions? What am I missing?

You are missing just about everything. It's not even funny.

A) "so how about the fact that the most modern electric plants are about 60% efficient " - If that is a fact, please provide the numbers you say I like, and references. The newest co-gen turbines have hit 60%, but they are only a portion of the grid power plant. Looking at the entire mix, the grid is not 60% efficient, not even the most 'modern' grid. Show me a grid that is 100% co-gen, then we will talk about 60%. That's why I used a rough 'blended' number of 50% eff, as a rough guide.

You jump between "efficiency" and "emissions". They aren't the same.

And "efficiency" really isn't the measure I'm focused on - that just gets mixed in the discussion. I'm interested in the environment, and that's the usual flag hoisted by the EV fans. As long as the marginal power to charge EVs is coming from fossil fuels (and it mostly will on most grids for a very long time), and EV looks to be worse than a hybrid. Maybe a little better (I'm repeating myself now), than a 2014 hybrid, but we've seen improvements since then, and continue to see improvements. But we still have some coal, for a long time as well. Coal is so bad, it only takes a little in the mix to make a big difference.

I want to see the lowest emissions we can actually practically achieve, in the fastest time. That looks to be hybrids for quite some time. I have no idea how you come up with the twists of my words that you do. But you haven't provided much in the way of numbers, so twisted words seems to be all you have. I'll take that back as you back up your words with numbers and references.


-ERD50

 

[RobbieB]

One good way is solar roofs at businesses. There is an abundance of solar during the day while people are working. Drive to work, charge all day for free and drive home.

 

[NW-Bound]

The problem is whether we should leave people stranded on cloudy days or rainy days. What do we do in the winter?

I like solar a lot, and solar panels are getting so cheap it's ridiculous. We still do not have cheap storage for all the solar power that we can generate so easily.

 

[ERD50]

EV is just an evolution on a theme: a car with a different motor. Wonder what the next revolution will be?

We walked around for thousands of years.

Then we rode around on animals for thousands of years.

Cars came along and replaced the animals.

Airplanes came along and shrunk the world.

I can't even imagine what the next revolutionary form of transportation might be. I hope it's a transporter. I hate sitting for hours waiting to get to my vacation spot. As long as it uses green energy

Yes. Sometimes I think that by the time EVs could really fit into the mainstream, we may have options that were not even apparent to us at this time (same as I feel about Self Driving cars).

Back to Musk - I see Tesla stock is back up today, so it seems the market has decided that podcast was not a big deal? I have no opinion on the podcast myself - it was on his time, it wasn't a Tesla event. If the guy wants to sip some spirits, or even (legally) puff on a joint, no problem from me. Investors have to decide for themselves.

....
He's all about renewable energy. Solar. Taking fossil fuels from the ground and putting them in our atmosphere is a horrible idea. Impossible for anyone to not see this. ...

Sure, it should be obvious that 'green' energy is better than burning fossil fuel and releasing that pollution to the atmosphere. Though, for completeness, I'll throw in the caveat that we actually need to fully understand the life cycle costs of any green technology, but I have no doubt that most of them are far better overall than fossil fuel, with the possible exception of hydro. I've read some analysis that hydro can be very bad overall, even though it does not directly emit any pollution.

But there is a big difference between recognizing it, and being able to do it. And if we overstate what we can do, we can end up worse off, as we didn't plan for the alternatives.

To make that clear, (and I'm not jabbing you, I'm just poking a bit to illustrate) - since this is so clear to you, you personally should stop using fossil fuel completely, today. Just do it! And make sure there were no fossil fuels used in the production of any solar panels or wind turbines, or batteries you may use. Good luck! It's just not as easily done as said.

To state that positively - as we learn how to use green energy, we need to do the best we can with fossil fuel. For the foreseeable future, for the typical driver, a good hybrid seems to be the best option for reducing fossil fuel consumption and reducing emissions, and is also practical for the most people. When that changes, we can/should change.

I'd buy a hybrid, but I limit my miles and they are split between our two cars. My calculations say it would likely be a environmental negative for me - I'd never recover the environmental or financial cost of the added battery/motor over the car's life. It's not one size fits all.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

One good way is solar roofs at businesses. There is an abundance of solar during the day while people are working. Drive to work, charge all day for free and drive home.

True to an extent. But remember, energy demand is high during the day. Those solar panels probably won't provide an excess for the grid, so they do provide a benefit by reducing how much the grid needs to burn fossil fuel.

But than, add a bunch of EVs charging, and those fossil fuel plants need to kick back in again. As I've said, until there is that steady, reliable, predictable excess of RE that can be absorbed by EVs, thsoe EVs are running mostly on fossil fuel.

Yes, someday, when we have that steady, reliable, predictable excess of RE that can be absorbed by EVs, EVs will be looking good.

When will that be across most grids in the US? I've heard some politicians yaking about it, I haven't seen any engineers describing how/when we get there, at a cost we can accept.

-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

Why wait?

I did? Where did I say that? Hint - I did not say that!

Look back at post # 377:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f44/thoughts-on-tesla-86202-2.html#post2105129

That chart from the NAS shows that on 100% NG, an EV is a little better environmentally than a circa 2014 hybrid (which keep improving). But no grid is 100% NG, and most have some coal, and even a little coal in the mix will turn that EV worse than a good hybrid. That's what I said!

I think where you get confused is, I showed that with rough numbers, there isn;t much difference in efficiency between a good hybrid and an EV, after taking in (which must be done) the losses in generating the electrical power from fuel, distribution, and charging the battery. And some efficiency numbers you see for EVs is only measured from the battery, not the power from the wall (misses the charging and distribution losses).




You are missing just about everything. It's not even funny.

A) "so how about the fact that the most modern electric plants are about 60% efficient " - If that is a fact, please provide the numbers you say I like, and references. The newest co-gen turbines have hit 60%, but they are only a portion of the grid power plant. Looking at the entire mix, the grid is not 60% efficient, not even the most 'modern' grid. Show me a grid that is 100% co-gen, then we will talk about 60%. That's why I used a rough 'blended' number of 50% eff, as a rough guide.

You jump between "efficiency" and "emissions". They aren't the same.

And "efficiency" really isn't the measure I'm focused on - that just gets mixed in the discussion. I'm interested in the environment, and that's the usual flag hoisted by the EV fans. As long as the marginal power to charge EVs is coming from fossil fuels (and it mostly will on most grids for a very long time), and EV looks to be worse than a hybrid. Maybe a little better (I'm repeating myself now), than a 2014 hybrid, but we've seen improvements since then, and continue to see improvements. But we still have some coal, for a long time as well. Coal is so bad, it only takes a little in the mix to make a big difference.

I want to see the lowest emissions we can actually practically achieve, in the fastest time. That looks to be hybrids for quite some time. I have no idea how you come up with the twists of my words that you do. But you haven't provided much in the way of numbers, so twisted words seems to be all you have. I'll take that back as you back up your words with numbers and references.-ERD50

I am certainly not trying to twist your words. So thank you for any corrections. You previously typed the words: "OK, but I'm not crazy about the word "concede", facts are facts, I will just acknowledge them, plain and simple. So yes, it's generally cheaper to power an EV with electricity than it is to power a car with gasoline/diesel - that's a fact." I read that to mean that the EV option uses less fuel for the same power as compared with ICE. That is why it would be "cheaper". Can EV's be "cheaper" without using less gas than an ICE (aside from additional maintenance savings)?

I will say, again, that I have no issues with hybrids until chargers are ubiquitous and EV range improves to the point where hybrids will offer no extra value.

Your argument makes little sense, if I am understanding it. You acknowledge, above, that we can currently produce electricity at a 50% to 60% efficiency and that it is improving all the time. At the same time you say you don't care (are agnostic) as to whether Tesla and others produce vehicles that can utilize this more efficient source of energy right now (more efficient than ICE). Just how efficient do you believe the best ICE engines are? How about the average efficiency of an ICE? Isn't any improvement better than nothing?

It seems obvious that the best solution, until we can get to near zero emission electric generation across the board, is to build the most efficient natural gas electric plants while we all switch to EV's or hybrids. Heck, it would not surprise me to learn that Musk is planning on building some natural gas plants just to fuel his cars and trucks. Are you on board?