Wana see a Tesla humiliate some drag cars?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: Shannow
All of these (and Ca) use "nett" when it comes to describe their "100%" claims.


edit...

https://forums.teslarati.com/threads/gigafactory-will-be-net-zero-and-carbon-neutral.1383/


"[W]e took kind of a radical move in the beginning and said we are not going to burn any fossil fuels in the factory. You know, zero emissions. We are going to build a zero-emissions factory — just like the car."

That's a load of B.S. Any Tesla buyer who receives their household electrical energy from a coal or natural gas fired power plant, is going to be using fossil fuel to power their new electrically powered wonder machine. They're just going the long way around the barn to do it. Tesla has to sell this B.S. to all of these Al Gore types that buy into it, in order to maintain a cash flow...... You know, just like Scientology does. The only difference is you get a car out of the deal with Tesla. Scientology just takes your money, and gives you the B.S. in return.
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
See the bbc article on a success story with wind power.

The point here is that you can't take past examples of early attempts or poorly conceived clean energy projects and extrapolate them as what will be repeated over the next decades. Innovation and scale is a very powerful thing.


Why? We aren't in disagreement that wind is inexpensive, which was the point of your linked article. It's the fact that it is intermittent, and that fact hasn't changed and won't for the foreseeable future. So either you leverage storage, which, if we are using Lithium Ion batteries, has a finite lifespan and relatively small capacity, or we do what we are doing presently and prop it up with some other technology that is either on standby or can work in concert. Some technologies are better than others on this front. There is a cost to either method that needs to be factored in.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer


As I may have said before, our price is $0.20 rising to $0.28 per kWh. If I spend over $60 a month, installing a solar system on my roof has a positive ROI. That's the situation now with today's technology.


Right, so you will shortly be paying double what our average rate is here. Our rate increased to what we see now from $0.046/kWh only a short 10 years ago as the push to "greenify" the grid was forced on us using the very technologies we are discussing. This same government fully intended on shutting down the nukes as part of that plan. Yet here we are and not only has Ontario now committed to another 40+ years of existing nuclear power, but even federally we've now put money towards the development of SMR's to be deployed nationally to replace fossil sources.

I think that's a prime example of your earlier point, no? The plan and projection was this wind and solar utopia and the result was an outraged populous and further reliance on existing technologies. This in turn resulted in a surprise resurgence in nuclear development to achieve the goal.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Cost refers to the cost of producing electricity. You are referring to the end price paid by consumers.

Yes, I referring to end-costs because presently, even though wind is, as we have discussed, cheap, we are not paying bargain rates for it. There's a rather massive differential between its viability rate and the rate it is actually paid. Solar has a long way to come to match other technologies for cost per kWh, as even using your examples, it is 10x more expensive than wind.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Sure, if you lose tax revenue from gasoline, then you need to get it back from someplace else. However, electric is half the price of gasoline per mile already in CA. Elsewhere in the world, that differential is going to be even bigger. There is a huge ability to bear higher electric prices for vehicle use.


That's a rather simplistic and, IMHO, myopic way of looking at it.

In Ontario for example, per Litre, our fuel is taxed at $0.10 Federally, $0.14 Provincially and then $0.13 HST. The Federal revenues alone from those taxes tops $6.6 billion, in a country of ~30 million people. To match that revenue, the price of electricity will need to increase far more than it already has. For Ontario, the fuel tax alone reaps revenue of ~$3.2billion, so then we must include the HST on top of that, which would be another $3.2 billion, then the Federal portion of that would be around $2.7 billion. That's $9.1 billion from a single province. Ontario Power Generation, the publicly owned entity, showed a profit of $403 million in 2016. Hydro ONE, our biggest utility, which has now been more than 50% spun off, used to make roughly $1 billion a year as profit, we will probably see $400 million a year now. So that puts us at $800 million in profit. Direct generation costs were $13.47 billion on 155,450GWh generated, total costs recuperated from consumers was $17.8 billion on $137,000GWh consumed, with electricity at an average retail price of ~$0.13/kWh. To increase revenue by $9.1 billion to get the lost revenue back would push average retail rates up to $0.20/kWh, which means an off-peak price of $0.15/kWh, close to double what we pay presently, mid-peak of $0.22/kWh and an on peak of $0.30/kWh.

Now, I know, you've got your California numbers and that's still cheaper than Europe, but this does not include the cost of additional transmission infrastructure or increased generation resources, both of which will be required as demand increases, and all of which will add to that first number (Generation Costs) and drive up the per kWh rate further.

Then there's the trickle-down.

I heat with Natural Gas. It is insanely cheap. To get people weaned off natural gas and onto electric heat it will cripple people financially. There are already people here paying $2,000 a month for electricity (we are charged Delivery separately and it is somewhat proportionate to kWh used) in the winter months with electric heat. Add charging their car and doubled retail rates and it would be entirely unaffordable.

This is a hugely multi-facetted problem that affects people on more than one front. The elimination of fossil fuels from our lives will have a massive cost associated with it and consumers will bear the brunt of that, or be expected to.

Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Yes nuclear is the fastest way to a low carbon energy future.


It certainly is. The problem is the amount of money already wasted on alternatives that haven't gotten us there any faster and we are still paying for. Look at Germany, who has sworn off nuclear and the majority of their electricity is generated via coal. What's their plan here? Obviously decades of wind and solar and the resultant 2nd highest rates in Europe hasn't gotten them there
21.gif
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The other elephant in the room is fuel taxes. A large portion of our infrastructure is built and maintained via the funding provided by the taxation of gasoline and diesel. As more and more vehicles become electrified, that income drops.


in the usa, no. this is changing rapidly.

yes our fuel tax pays a nice chunk of our roads.

however 11 states now charge a "road tax" on electric cars to make up for the loss of fuel tax.

http://insideevs.com/u-s-states-charge-electric-car-fees-make-lost-gas-tax-revenue/

it wont take long before its 48 or 49 or even all 50(i think alaska would be last imho).
 
Originally Posted By: sunruh
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
The other elephant in the room is fuel taxes. A large portion of our infrastructure is built and maintained via the funding provided by the taxation of gasoline and diesel. As more and more vehicles become electrified, that income drops.


in the usa, no. this is changing rapidly.

yes our fuel tax pays a nice chunk of our roads.

however 11 states now charge a "road tax" on electric cars to make up for the loss of fuel tax.

http://insideevs.com/u-s-states-charge-electric-car-fees-make-lost-gas-tax-revenue/

it wont take long before its 48 or 49 or even all 50(i think alaska would be last imho).


Given the relatively small fees when compared to the average revenue garnered from taxation on fuel, I think you'll find that model will either massively increase in cost, or will be scrapped in favour of one that transfers that cost to the electricity sector and follows consumption, such as rate increases or riders.

I could see a mandate for dedicated charge stations that are taxed separately from home consumption working here.

One can safely assume that the present cost/impact scenario with Steve and his Tesla on your average roadway is vastly overshadows by Trucker Jim and his 8Mpg Kenworth hauling 80K lbs. So at this juncture, some flaccid flat fee to appease Average Joe is sufficient. When greater penetration occurs and we start seeing E-Trucker Jim and his 900kWh Tesworth hauling 80K lbs, consumption-based taxation will likely be standard-fare, as it is far better model at following the actual impact on the roadways.
 
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: strongt
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Lets see Seattle to Missoula Mt. non stop doing the legal speed limit lets see who gets there first.


At 475 miles even gas cars will need to stop for fuel. The tesla model s needs one 20min charge on a supercharger during the trip to make it. There are 4 supercharger locations spread throughout I-90 between Seattle & Missoula. It's funny the hate here about any new tech. As for charging stations check out the map:
Tesla Charging Map


Actually, I made that trip in July in my diesel pickup, but I didn't make Missoula. With a 35 gallon tank, 245 pounds of diesel fuel gives my truck 700+ miles of range at 75 mph. And I can refuel in 5 minutes, which is nearly faster than I can pee and get a Coke.


LOL yes but how long does it take to fill your tank vs recharge that Tesla battery. But you obviously over looked that little problem didn't you? But just to clue you in my Duramax can make that trip with out refueling on just it stock tank.
 
Last edited:
And what happens when that supercharger station is already in use?

No hate here for good tech. Just disappointment at someone trying to tell us what's good for everybody....
 
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And what happens when that supercharger station is already in use?


You wait. Just like when all the pumps are in use. My guess is the wait is going to be a bit longer.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
And what happens when that supercharger station is already in use?


You wait. Just like when all the pumps are in use. My guess is the wait is going to be a bit longer.


Originally Posted By: Shannow

Can only use the supercharger a limited number of times at high charge rate....

Quote:
The issue came back into focus this week after a Tesla owner returned from a road trip where he used several different Superchargers and couldn’t get a charge rate above 90 kW even though the top charge rate is officially 120 kW.

He went to the Tesla Service Center and posted the technician’s conclusion to the Tesla Motors Club:

Supercharger General Diagnosis Conclusion: No Trouble Found. Review vehicle logs and verify charging is topping out a lower rate than observed on earlier DC charging sessions. According to Tesla engineers, once vehicle has been DC fast charged over a specified amount, the battery management system restricts DC charging to prevent degradation of the battery pack. According to Tesla engineers, this vehicle has seen significant DC fast charging and is now has permanently restricted DC charging speeds. Important to note, supercharging will always still be available to the vehicle and the battery pack has not yet experienced significant degradation due to the amount of DC fast charging performed on the pack up until this point in time. Vehicle is operating as designed.

The news that a limit has been placed on DC fast-charging has sparked some outrage among Tesla owners in the thread, but to be fair, this particular Tesla owner has been virtually only charging through DC fast-charging, which is not common amongst electric vehicle owners.

He said that he accumulated 6,685.603 kWh of DC fast charges during 245 total charge ups on CHAdeMO only – and he estimates that he used Superchargers on “50 to 60 occasions” on top of that.


So at that point in your Tesla's life, with the 85KWh battery, it's drive 265 miles, spend an hour on the Supercharger (not 20 mins), then drive off again...assuming you don't have to wait in line for the other guy(s) using their hour.

I can use the fast fill diesel pump at the truck stop every time I fill up, and no degradation...and the guy behind me only has to wait 5-6 minutes.
 
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Originally Posted By: A_Harman
Originally Posted By: strongt
Originally Posted By: JohnnyJohnson
Lets see Seattle to Missoula Mt. non stop doing the legal speed limit lets see who gets there first.


At 475 miles even gas cars will need to stop for fuel. The tesla model s needs one 20min charge on a supercharger during the trip to make it. There are 4 supercharger locations spread throughout I-90 between Seattle & Missoula. It's funny the hate here about any new tech. As for charging stations check out the map:
Tesla Charging Map


Actually, I made that trip in July in my diesel pickup, but I didn't make Missoula. With a 35 gallon tank, 245 pounds of diesel fuel gives my truck 700+ miles of range at 75 mph. And I can refuel in 5 minutes, which is nearly faster than I can pee and get a Coke.


LOL yes but how long does it take to fill your tank vs recharge that Tesla battery. But you obviously over looked that little problem didn't you? But just to clue you in my Duramax can make that trip with out refueling on just it stock tank.



My point was that I got well past Missoula.
And I wasn't doing the speed limit, either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top