Tesla scores highest marks ever in Crash Ratings

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Even though most electricity is generated by burning hydrocarbons, electric cars are STILL way more efficent than conventional gasoline powered cars.

gasoline vehicle = burned hydrocarbons
electric vehicle = WAY LESS burned hydrocarbons

Which is better? Umm, electric.

Yeah, if everyone converted to electric tomorrow we would be in trouble. But, that's obviously not going to happen. I think we will get there someday.

The long recharge time is not really an issue either, unless you're going on a long road trip. For commuting back and forth to work, which, let's face it, is what 99% of cars do most of the time, it's perfect. You have a full charge which gives you over 100 miles of range. You drive about 30 miles to work, you drive back home, and you STILL have 40%/40 miles left. You plug the car in, and it charges up while you're sleeping all night. You wake up the next morning, and you have a full charge again. Repeat.

And it doesn't take 18 hours to charge it up, either. Maybe if you're using a 120V outlet. A more much more realistic charging time would be 5 hours with 240V. And that's IF you totally depleted the battery, which like I said above, you probably won't come close to on a typical day.


Great for around town maybe.

What if you have two houses, 91 miles apart, separated by a small mountain range? Arrive on the electric equivalent of fumes ( if you make it at all ) and then spend five to twelve hours waiting for the device to be useful again?

No thanks, I'll keep the gas fueled Jaguars and Pontiacs.

At least the Volt can carry some gas with it, far more practical, imo, than a purely electric car.


Agreed. That's one example, there are many more, like having an emergency requiring you do get somewhere in a hurry and you're low on voltage. I can drive less than 1/2 a mile to a gas station open 24/7 and be ready to rock and roll another 300+ miles in about 5 minutes.

 

[exranger06]

Where did I mention cost? The article was talking about how much EMISSIONS electric cars put out, which has everything to do with efficiency. You didn’t give any “real world numbers” except that power plants are 40% efficient. And really, who cares what the “efficiency” is? What are the REASONS we want it to be efficient? We want lower emissions, and lower fuel cost to the consumer. Any other reasons you can think of? I already posted a link that shows electric vehicles have less emissions than conventional cars. The only thing left is cost. This will vary depending on your use and electric rate, so it’s up to the consumer to do the math to see if it works for them.

And for the record, I’m an engineer too. In the electric utility industry.

Originally Posted By: KrisZ

I wondered why those numbers looked so high. Spinning the numbers like that only proves that the whole electric car fad is a hyperbole, nothing more.

Please show me where I "spun" any numbers.

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: Win
Originally Posted By: exranger06
Even though most electricity is generated by burning hydrocarbons, electric cars are STILL way more efficent than conventional gasoline powered cars.

gasoline vehicle = burned hydrocarbons
electric vehicle = WAY LESS burned hydrocarbons

Which is better? Umm, electric.

Yeah, if everyone converted to electric tomorrow we would be in trouble. But, that's obviously not going to happen. I think we will get there someday.

The long recharge time is not really an issue either, unless you're going on a long road trip. For commuting back and forth to work, which, let's face it, is what 99% of cars do most of the time, it's perfect. You have a full charge which gives you over 100 miles of range. You drive about 30 miles to work, you drive back home, and you STILL have 40%/40 miles left. You plug the car in, and it charges up while you're sleeping all night. You wake up the next morning, and you have a full charge again. Repeat.

And it doesn't take 18 hours to charge it up, either. Maybe if you're using a 120V outlet. A more much more realistic charging time would be 5 hours with 240V. And that's IF you totally depleted the battery, which like I said above, you probably won't come close to on a typical day.


Great for around town maybe.

What if you have two houses, 91 miles apart, separated by a small mountain range? Arrive on the electric equivalent of fumes ( if you make it at all ) and then spend five to twelve hours waiting for the device to be useful again?

No thanks, I'll keep the gas fueled Jaguars and Pontiacs.

At least the Volt can carry some gas with it, far more practical, imo, than a purely electric car.

You really think you’re going to burn up 300 miles of range going only 91 miles? You’ll have plenty to make there, even if you go through the mountains. Charge it back up before you go back home again.

Anyway, I already clearly said they’re not practical for long trips. I said they’re good for commuting back and forth to work. Go complain about your “rich people problems” somewhere else.

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: exranger06
Where did I mention cost? The article was talking about how much EMISSIONS electric cars put out, which has everything to do with efficiency. You didn’t give any “real world numbers” except that power plants are 40% efficient. And really, who cares what the “efficiency” is? What are the REASONS we want it to be efficient? We want lower emissions, and lower fuel cost to the consumer. Any other reasons you can think of? I already posted a link that shows electric vehicles have less emissions than conventional cars. The only thing left is cost. This will vary depending on your use and electric rate, so it’s up to the consumer to do the math to see if it works for them.

And for the record, I’m an engineer too. In the electric utility industry.

Originally Posted By: KrisZ

I wondered why those numbers looked so high. Spinning the numbers like that only proves that the whole electric car fad is a hyperbole, nothing more.

Please show me where I "spun" any numbers.


That graph has very little to do with fossil fuels which was the point. That graph includes hydroelectric and nuclear power supplied areas. Even the areas shown around 33 MPG are not exclusively fossil fuel based. Those efficiencies are just poppycock for the most part.

Facts are facts. For people who receive their power from fossil fuel power plants (the point you tried to spin away from), electric cars are not more efficient, environmentally friendly, etc. than a CNG powered car.

 

[supton]

I'd contemplate it. 25c/m operating costs, maybe? I haven't checked my running costs recently on my commuter, as I edge closer to 300k it's gotta be breaking 20c/m soon. Depreciation+repairs+fuel+maintance. For communting I just need 90mile round trip, heck I'll give up a/c but I won't give up heat. I'll take the truck if need be, on the really cold days, say any time below 20F. Nah, make it 10F, too many days at 20F around here.

Wait a minute, for a PEV, I wouldn't jump until it was 20c/m or better. No real sense (cents?) until then.

 

[exranger06]

Originally Posted By: badtlc


That graph has very little to do with fossil fuels which was the point. That graph includes hydroelectric and nuclear power supplied areas. Even the areas shown around 33 MPG are not exclusively fossil fuel based. Those efficiencies are just poppycock for the most part.

Facts are facts. For people who receive their power from fossil fuel power plants (the point you tried to spin away from), electric cars are not more efficient, environmentally friendly, etc. than a CNG powered car.


So what if not all areas are not powered by fossil fuels? That’s just another advantage of electric cars. All the people who try to dismiss electric cars and say “they don’t solve anything, they still pollute” like to assume all areas have fossil-fueled electric and use that as part of their argument. But like the graph shows, many areas are NOT fossil fueled electric and using an electric car does NOT necessarily mean you’re polluting just as much as a gasoline car. I never tried to spin away from any points made. You say electric cars aren’t better in fossil powered electric areas? Fine. I’m not ENTIRELY convinced as I have not seen sufficient evidence to convince me, but I will keep my mind open to the possibility that you may be right.

 

[glock19]

I'm totally open to the idea of an electric car. If it can make my 20 mile commute across the city every day and get me home on a charge I am fine with charging it every night to do it all over again.

The only problem I see is that I'll have to keep a second car in order to go on road trips or visit family. In the city it's bad enough trying to park and maintain one car let alone two.

 

[whip]

Why can't it be a cool unique car? It's no less efficient than a BMW with a turbo charged V8, yet nobody criticizes that car for being inefficient.

 

[whip]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: whip
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Yup. CNG and LNG will be viable solutions for the masses long before the electric vehicle. There needs to be drastic improvements in electric vehicle technology before people start getting too excited.


I would rather have a METH LAB next door than one of those in my garage!

You have a entertaining habit of posting hyperbole. Thanks for the laugh.


I am absolutely one hundred percent dead serious.

Like I said, your repeated hyperbole is entertaining.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You might not have a problem with turning the garage into a fuel-air explosive, but I do.

 

[KrisZ]

Originally Posted By: exranger06

Please show me where I "spun" any numbers.


It's not you, but the article you linked.

For example they say that producing electricity through coal releases about 1,100 grams of CO2/kwh.
Then they go to say the production and consumption of gasoline combined produce 11,200 grams of CO2/gallon. Yet we know that consumption of gasoline will be dependant on fuel efficiency, but they keep that number constant for all their calculations and only vary the grams of CO2/kwh.

Another thing that stands out is coals efficiency appears to be at about 10 kwh/gallon. It looks fine on the surface and keep in mind that perfect energy amount is about 33kwh/gallon. But if you look at solar, that energy equivalent goes to about 140kwh/gallon! That's why I think CO2, so called, emissions are a crock of you know what.

 

[KrisZ]

Another interesting factoid to the above is the claim that in order to produce and consume gas we emit 11,200 grams of CO2/gallon, however burning 1 gallon of gasoline apparently (via google search) releases about 14 pounds or 6,300 grams of CO2.

So what they're saying is that in order to burn one gallon of gas in our cars, we need to burn pretty much another gallon just to make it and deliver it to gas station, which is a total fallacy!

 

[Samilcar]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
You might not have a problem with turning the garage into a fuel-air explosive, but I do.


This is why I don't park our cars in the garage. I just don't trust that new-fangled explosive gasoline technology...

 

[demarpaint]

Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
You might not have a problem with turning the garage into a fuel-air explosive, but I do.


This is why I don't park our cars in the garage. I just don't trust that new-fangled explosive gasoline technology...


In the 30+ years I've been garaging cars I never gave the new-fangled explosive gasoline technology much thought.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: Samilcar
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
You might not have a problem with turning the garage into a fuel-air explosive, but I do.


This is why I don't park our cars in the garage. I just don't trust that new-fangled explosive gasoline technology...


You DO know that a full CNG or LNG fuel tank will VENT in hot weather...right?

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
So what they're saying is that in order to burn one gallon of gas in our cars, we need to burn pretty much another gallon just to make it and deliver it to gas station, which is a total fallacy!


This is the sad fact about the green militants. They will distort the numbers to suit their needs and agenda, facts be [censored]...

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: whip
Why can't it be a cool unique car? It's no less efficient than a BMW with a turbo charged V8, yet nobody criticizes that car for being inefficient.


No one likes electric cars or pushing technology.


120 years ago horses were a much better way to get around than the at the time new car. Also aircraft? Ha.

The last days of old technology are always better than the first days of new.

I think the Model S makes a very interesting alternative to a diesel Audi A8 or S320CDI. All of which run around $100k+/-.

As for long trips? Really who does that anymore? That's what the second or third vehicle is for.

A Model S for Monday-friday and a say an SLS Mercedes or an Aston Martin for the weekend...that sounds like a fun garage.

 

[A_Harman]

Originally Posted By: demarpaint
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Originally Posted By: badtlc
Originally Posted By: exranger06

Factoring in all losses, including the efficiency of the power plant, an electric car gets worst case scenario 33 mpg (equivalent), best case scenario 112 mpg (equivalent). I’d like to see a diesel or CNG car do that. And batteries don’t get disposed of, they get recycled.


Your evaluation is based on $, not resources used. I already showed you the "real world numbers." Efficiency has nothing to do with cost. You should start following the energy and not the money, but be warned, if you do that you won't like the results since it doesn't favor electric cars.

For the record, electric cars would make me millions of $$$ personally. My engineering company is in the power production, distribution and delivery business. I'd love to see them succeed, but as an engineer, I have to deal in reality not propaganda.


dead on the money. 100% facts. Good post, badtlc!

Sorry it doesn't fit the current (get it?) agenda, but electric is not quite "car ready' yet. May be soon, one of you booster guys go first!!!


Exactly! It's in its infant stage. Let the people with the money who can afford it, test it. Let their experiences both good and bad be the catalyst for the improvement. If/when it really catches on and matures some of the doubters might buy in. For me it's too early in its development and maturity.

As a side note I wonder how they'd sell with a good gas or diesel engine. They are sharp looking and safe cars.


The electric storage battery was invented in 1803.
The electric motor in 1836.
The gasoline engine was invented in 1876.
Battery electric propulsion actually predates the internal combustion engine by decades.
Electric cars competed head-to-head with gasoline cars at the turn of 20th century.
After Boss Kettering invented the electric self-starter in 1912, the electric car was doomed.
Ever since then, electric car advocates have been saying "just wait for the big battery breakthrough, and electric cars will be dominant in 10 years".
After 100 years of hearing that same excuse, it's becoming a little stale, don't you think?

 

[cchase]

At some point, battery technology will progress and exceed internal combustion technology. They are slowly getting there with storage, but they're still far from there on charging rates. Even the "fast charges" (that aren't all that fast) they're allowing here are probably very detrimental to battery life.

 

[Duffman77]

Originally Posted By: badtlc


Facts are facts. For people who receive their power from fossil fuel power plants (the point you tried to spin away from), electric cars are not more efficient, environmentally friendly, etc. than a CNG powered car.


Facts are Facts so stop making up your own numbers. There are studies out there that even powered off coal, electric is still greener. IC engines are coming a long way but you dismiss their "line losses" from crank to wheel which is also significant.

Transmission losses aside, a CNG engine cant compete with the combined cycle electric power plants which can approach 60%.