Thoughts on TESLA

[ncbill]

I think this is the biggest shortcoming. For the most part it is a second car limited to local use.

Close relative is a used car dealer down at the beach (roads flat as a pancake)

He took in trade a Smart EV & now uses it to commute to his business every day.

 

[ERD50]

Or imagine getting out of town for an evacuation.

Maybe there's a hurricane that made a surprise turn and is now heading your way. Oops, you only have a half charge and can't get out of the danger zone without a quick charge. Of course there are a "few" others who need that same quick charge. hmmm

Not a common occurrence, but one people will think about if they live in certain areas.

I think this is the biggest shortcoming. For the most part it is a second car limited to local use.

We drive few miles, and only occasionally beyond the range of even a mid-range EV like the Leaf. So an EV actually could be a sensible option for us as a second car, as we could use the first for any longer trips.

Though it is admittedly rare, I have had to unexpectedly use that second car for a longer trip, and/or loan it to someone w/o charging access (my DD at college - parked on the street).

So any way you want to slice it, a car that has range limitations is by definition of less overall value than an equivalent one that can be refueled at any gas station. It is a limitation. It may or may not affect an individual, or only affect them on rare occasions, but it really can't be ignored.

-ERD50

 

[ERD50]

Where there is a need, there will be a supply. New gas plants will be built at a pace to keep up with demand. Why would they not?

Tesla up 16% pre market.

So there it is. EVs run on fossil fuel.

-ERD50

 

[Fedup]

Naughty by nature by Elon Musk, that was a laugh. Maybe he should change his name to Elon Nut.

 

[kcowan]

And it takes me 10 seconds to plug my Model 3 in to charge

One thing that our local power company is doing is charging for peak usage on the rationale that they must build the capacity to support that peak usage. Is anyone else experiencing that? It seems to be one of the many tricks they can use with smart meters.

 

[Rianne]

Tesla initiated a healthy competitive market for electric/battery operated cars. They were taboo before Tesla.

 

[Chuckanut]

One thing that our local power company is doing is charging for peak usage on the rationale that they must build the capacity to support that peak usage. Is anyone else experiencing that? It seems to be one of the many tricks they can use with smart meters.

My local power company tried that over a decade ago. They promoted it heavily as a way to control one's energy expenses and save money. Unfortunately, they rigged the rates so that it was nearly impossible to save any money, and difficult to break even with the straight rate. IIRC the cheap rate was from 10:00 PM to 5 AM with a savings of about 20%. The highest rate was about 40% higher than normal and went from 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 10:00 pm. The regular rate was from about 9:00 AM to to 4:00 PM.

A neighbor who worked from 3:00 PM to mid-nite did ok, but for the rest of us between the usage times and the difference between 40% more vs 20% less, it was just a price increase. They were forced to abandon the project and refund some of the extra money they collected.

 

[Hamlet]

I live in Minnesota. I'm not confident that an EV is ever going to be very practical in a place that routinely has stretches of -20 degree F nights.

From the sounds of it, for the current Teslas, serious winter temps involve a 30-40% reduction in range.

 

[oneill225]

So there it is. EVs run on fossil fuel.
-ERD50

For now. A hundred years from now? Probably not. It is what it is.

Still better than ICE when it comes to air and noise pollution.

 

[ERD50]

For now. A hundred years from now? Probably not. It is what it is.

Still better than ICE when it comes to air and noise pollution.

100 years from now? Again, you don't come across as serious.

... Still better than ICE when it comes to air and noise pollution.

Not so clear, with regard to air pollution. A good hybrid may be better than or at least as good as an EV on many (most?) grids. Refer back to that NAS graph I've posted numerous times. Just repeating it doesn't make it so.

Tesla initiated a healthy competitive market for electric/battery operated cars. They were taboo before Tesla.

Taboo? I'm not following that claim at all. What do you mean?

And how does one company "initiate a healthy competitive market for" anything? They might take steps to stifle competition, but how can one company initiate competition, which by definition requires more than one company? Not making sense to me. Please explain. What am I missing?


-ERD50

 

[oneill225]

100 years from now? Again, you don't come across as serious.
Not so clear, with regard to air pollution. A good hybrid may be better than or at least as good as an EV on many (most?) grids. Refer back to that NAS graph I've posted numerous times. Just repeating it doesn't make it so.-ERD50

Please explain. Don't you believe that we will transition off of fossil fuels in the future?

Your NAS study is bogus for the reasons stated, previously. In short, it misrepresents the current status of electrical grids by overstating the use of coal powered generation (among other flaws in the methodology). The following information shows that your reliance on the NAS study is misplaced.

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

 

[NW-Bound]

One thing that our local power company is doing is charging for peak usage on the rationale that they must build the capacity to support that peak usage. Is anyone else experiencing that? It seems to be one of the many tricks they can use with smart meters.

My local power company tried that over a decade ago. They promoted it heavily as a way to control one's energy expenses and save money. Unfortunately, they rigged the rates so that it was nearly impossible to save any money, and difficult to break even with the straight rate. IIRC the cheap rate was from 10:00 PM to 5 AM with a savings of about 20%. The highest rate was about 40% higher than normal and went from 5:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM to 10:00 pm. The regular rate was from about 9:00 AM to to 4:00 PM.

A neighbor who worked from 3:00 PM to mid-nite did ok, but for the rest of us between the usage times and the difference between 40% more vs 20% less, it was just a price increase. They were forced to abandon the project and refund some of the extra money they collected.

We have used "time-of-use" rate plan for a long time, perhaps 2 decades. The flat rate is still available, and the customer has the choice.

With the flat rate, I would pay between $0.115/kWh to $0.132, depending on how much I use. With the "time-of-use" plan, it is $0.073/kWh in off-peak hours, and $0.2215/kWh for on-peak hours of 1PM-8PM. Note that the peak period corresponds to time of high AC usage. All weekend hours are off-peak.

The above rates are for the summer. All rates are lower for the winter, and the on-peak period changes to reflect the switch to heating instead of cooling.

In July, I saved $19 with the variable rate. They show that I saved $124 over the entire year.

No major change in lifestyle. All I did was to put the pool pump and water heater on a timer. We have to remember not to do laundry during on-peak hours. That was it.

 

[Texas Proud]

Oneill,


I know you are gung ho on Tesla and think we (assume you mean USA) will be going all electric whenever they get the kinks out like range anxiety and faster charging... that the infrastructure will appear...


But, I will not believe that to be true until there is significantly more EVs in Europe... first, their gvmts will put in more money.... second, there is not as much range anxiety as most things are closer... third, the economics are much harsher on ICE with their taxes etc...


So if it is not happening in Europe (or heck, even Japan) then it will not happen here...

 

[NW-Bound]

Well, in Europe most people have to park their cars on the street. Not easy as plugging into an outlet in your own garage.

The electric grid in Europe is also weak. They are not energy hog like Americans. AC is only for the rich people.

 

[oneill225]

Oneill,


I know you are gung ho on Tesla and think we (assume you mean USA) will be going all electric whenever they get the kinks out like range anxiety and faster charging... that the infrastructure will appear...
But, I will not believe that to be true until there is significantly more EVs in Europe... first, their gvmts will put in more money.... second, there is not as much range anxiety as most things are closer... third, the economics are much harsher on ICE with their taxes etc...
So if it is not happening in Europe (or heck, even Japan) then it will not happen here...

I admit that I am gung ho on Tesla and the near future for EVs. I try to be realistic, also. I recognize that there are hurdles to jump prior to full adoption and that it will likely take 5-10 years before we hit a tipping point (when EVs will dominate the market).

Regarding Europe? I don't see that they are a car-heavy part of the world. They are now receiving Teslas and other EVs will follow, but it looks like the US and China are leading this transition. I have seen some ongoing projects for electric busses and trains that may be more popular in Europe.

 

[ERD50]

Please explain. Don't you believe that we will transition off of fossil fuels in the future? ....

Again, you are not being serious. You said "A hundred years from now?", it's ridiculous to try to predict our power source future 100 years fro now, and irrelevant to the conversation of EVs in the next decade or two..

.... Your NAS study is bogus for the reasons stated, previously. In short, it misrepresents the current status of electrical grids by overstating the use of coal powered generation (among other flaws in the methodology). The following information shows that your reliance on the NAS study is misplaced.

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

More non-serious talk from you. As I pointed out in each case and in that recent post, an EV on 100% NG isn't much better than the hybrid model they used. No coal involved.

Your link is based only on CO2, not total pollutants. I'm done with you, you just are not serious.

-ERD50

 

[NW-Bound]

Some numbers which will be of interest.

The US electric energy consumption is 1,377 W per person, averaged over 24/365.

The highest EU consumption is Germany at 754 W per person, also averaged as above.

 

[oneill225]

Again, you are not being serious. You said "A hundred years from now?", it's ridiculous to try to predict our power source future 100 years fro now, and irrelevant to the conversation of EVs in the next decade or two.

Seems like the trend, which is what I stated.

More non-serious talk from you. As I pointed out in each case and in that recent post, an EV on 100% NG isn't much better than the hybrid model they used.

Not according to the gov info I just linked to.

Your link is based only on CO2, not total pollutants. I'm done with you, you just are not serious.

Incorrect. It's based on "Well-to-wheel" emissions. Defined as:

"Well-to-wheel emissions include all emissions related to fuel production, processing, distribution, and use. In the case of gasoline, emissions are produced while extracting petroleum from the earth, refining it, distributing the fuel to stations, and burning it in vehicles. In the case of electricity, most electric power plants produce emissions, and there are additional emissions associated with the extraction, processing, and distribution of the primary energy sources they use for electricity production."

Good bye.

 

[ERD50]

OK, I was looking at the charts - those were for CO2 only. The text did talk about total emissions.

But of course, you don't quote anything that doesn't look so great for you:

In regions that depend heavily on conventional fossil fuels for electricity generation, PEVs may not demonstrate a well-to-wheel emissions benefit.

Natural Gas is a conventional fossil fuel, the one you (correctly) stated would be needed to support EV demand.

IOW, EVs aren't a boon to the environment their supporters claim. Maybe a bit better in than a good hybrid in some cases, some conditions. They ain't gonna save the planet.

-ERD50

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

39.2 percent of car sales in Norway were electric in 2017.

 

[NW-Bound]

I am glad you brought this up.

Norwegians are huge consumers of electricity. Per capita consumption in 2014 was 23,000 kWh.

For comparison, the US consumption was 13,000 kWh, also in 2014.

The difference? Norway is blessed with huge amount of hydro power. Lucky people.

39.2 percent of car sales in Norway were electric in 2017.

 

[braumeister]

39.2 percent of car sales in Norway were electric in 2017.

Norway is unquestionably the leader, mainly because of the powerful incentives.

• Free municipal parking
• Free charging in public places (one charger per 10 cars)
• No purchase/import tax
• Exemption from 25% VAT
• No annual road tax
• No road toll charges
• Allowed to use bus lanes
• 50% reduced company car tax

But even so, both of the Norwegians I know personally own PHEVs, not pure EVs. Range is still an issue.

 

[NW-Bound]

Uh oh, all that wonderful hydropower can disappear when you have a drought. See news report in July 2018.

OSLO, July 5 (Reuters) - Norway’s electricity prices, usually among the cheapest in Europe, have doubled for the third quarter as a lack of rainfall makes hydropower dam output as costly as German power, the country’s regulator said. Norway’s electricity price for the third quarter was trading at 0.43 crowns ($0.0532) per kilowatt hour (KWh), twice 2017’s level, according to Norway’s water resources and energy directorate (NVE).

That continued a trend of high Norwegian power prices this year, with the spot energy price during spring and early summer also double 2017 levels.

 

[ERD50]

I am glad you brought this up.

Norwegians are huge consumers of electricity. Per capita consumption in 2014 was 23,000 kWh.

For comparison, the US consumption was 13,000 kWh, also in 2014.

The difference? Norway is blessed with huge amount of hydro power. Lucky people.

And that hydro allows Norway to:

https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/production-and-exports/exports-of-oil-and-gas/

However, Norway is the third largest exporter of natural gas in the world and Norway supplies about 25 per cent of the EU gas demand. Nearly all oil and gas produced on the Norwegian shelf is exported, and combined, oil and gas equals about half of the total value of Norwegian exports of goods. This makes oil and gas the most important export commodities in the Norwegian economy.

So if they didn't have hydro, they'd be using that fossil fuel. Of course, someone else is using it. Or if they didn't use so many kWh, they could export more of that hydro, and limit fossil fuel use further overall (like money, energy is fungible to a degree)? Sounds a bit like some of the energy hogs that claim they are 'green' because they buy credits to offset their usage.

-ERD50

 

[Mr. Tightwad]

Norway is unquestionably the leader, mainly because of the powerful incentives.

• Free municipal parking
• Free charging in public places (one charger per 10 cars)
• No purchase/import tax
• Exemption from 25% VAT
• No annual road tax
• No road toll charges
• Allowed to use bus lanes
• 50% reduced company car tax

But even so, both of the Norwegians I know personally own PHEVs, not pure EVs. Range is still an issue.

For 39% of the people in Norway it wasn't

My Model 3 has a range of 310. I haven't driven 150 miles in one direction in years. Not a large percentage of Americans drive beyond that range. Most stay below 40