[Guitarman]

Elon Musk will be remembered as the John Delorean of our age. Nothing more than a con man selling a pipe dream to the gullible.

I'm glad that people are finally seeing through the hype about Tesla. The biggest problem with tesla cars above and beyond the build quality and business issues is that they suffer the same problems of all battery electric cars over the last 120 years and that is the problem of limited range and battery weight.

It comes down to the simple principles of physics and chemistry that prove a battery/ electric car will always be inferior to a hydrocarbon powered car. Put simply, weight for weight there is and always will be far more energy stored in 1kg of hydrocarbon versus 1kg of battery. And battery technology is already almost as good as it is ever going to get.

The electric car is a technological dead end. It should have been left where it was, abandoned as a viable means of transport back in the early years of the 20th Century.

[Genghis Khan]

(07-10-2017 04:10 AM)Guitarman Wrote:  

Elon Musk will be remembered as the John Delorean of our age. Nothing more than a con man selling a pipe dream to the gullible.

I'm glad that people are finally seeing through the hype about Tesla. The biggest problem with tesla cars above and beyond the build quality and business issues is that they suffer the same problems of all battery electric cars over the last 120 years and that is the problem of limited range and battery weight.

It comes down to the simple principles of physics and chemistry that prove a battery/ electric car will always be inferior to a hydrocarbon powered car. Put simply, weight for weight there is and always will be far more energy stored in 1kg of hydrocarbon versus 1kg of battery. And battery technology is already almost as good as it is ever going to get.

The electric car is a technological dead end. It should have been left where it was, abandoned as a viable means of transport back in the early years of the 20th Century.

To be fair to electric cars - automobiles weight a shit ton. And I do wonder if that'll change. Hoping someone with a better understanding than me can chime in on this, but what's the likelihood significantly lighter cars will see the day of light. BMW was working on having carbon-fiber cars:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/transportation/...fiber-cars

Quote:

Building moderately priced cars from CFRP had long been a holy grail for automotive engineers, because a carbon chassis weighs half as much as a steel counterpart and 30 percent less than aluminum. The savings in weight translates into better performance and higher fuel efficiency. Therefore, it’s a material of choice for everything from Formula One racers and America’s Cup yachts to jet fighters, spacecraft, and the Boeing 787.

Cost was the sticking point. “Time and again, everyone said it was impossible,” says Joerg Pohlman, director of BMW’s carbon fiber projects. The technology took hundreds of millions of dollars of research and development to perfect.

The company now intends to begin building more than 1 million carbon-fiber components a year and to eventually base many of its cars on the material.

http://jalopnik.com/bmw-just-kicked-ever...1698960901

Quote:

The sixth-generation 7 Series isn’t made entirely of carbon fiber reenforced plastic, but combines the best attributes of steel, aluminum and CFRP to make the body shell 88 pounds lighter than the current car’s, while the overall weight got pushed down by “up to 286 pounds.” That’s one heavy pig saved right there.

In addition, if self-driving cars take off, limited range may not such an issue anymore.

I can foresee a future where the majority of mankind uses self-driving cars and the electric versus ICE debate comes down to whatever ends up being cheapest per mile.

A few questions:
1) what's the current range for EVs?
2) how much does the range need to be extended for EVs to be acceptable for the majority of people?
3) can materials like CFRP get EVs to that extended range? Is the math as simple as a 50% reduction in weight leads to a doubling in range or are there non-linearities involved?

But agreed that Elon Musk is very rapidly spiralling downwards, his almost imminent failure will absolutely set him as the con-man he is.

[Hypno]

I think EVs have a range of about 300 miles. Some a little less, and as the car ages the batteries don't recharge fully so its a little less.

I have heard they are working on technology to make the recharge process last only 10-20 minutes, but its some years away.

[weambulance]

Quote:

A few questions:
1) what's the current range for EVs?

The Teslas get ~300 miles as mentioned. Others are worse, some significantly. However, that's also in ideal conditions. Cold weather? Fewer miles. Warm weather, and you want to use the A/C? Fewer miles. Hilly area? Fewer miles. Etc.

And as Hypno said, batteries lose capacity with age. It's not some trivial deterioration, it's a big deal; by 5-6 years the battery pack might only have half the original capacity. It depends on how it is treated.

Quote:

2) how much does the range need to be extended for EVs to be acceptable for the majority of people?

I don't think the basic range issue is the problem, though that's not great. My little AWD crossover gets over 400 miles per tank, after all.

The real problem is the fact that it takes a long damn time to recharge, and you can only do a fast recharge--which still takes 10-15x longer than filling up a gas tank--at certain locations. And those certain locations are model specific, because there's no charging standard for the different makes. You can't charge a Volt with a Tesla Supercharger.

So, you're limited in where you can go by where the fast chargers are, if you want to make any real time. And you can't exactly bring a 5 gallon jug of spare electricity to help get to the next place, so you're always worried about making it to a charger. That sounds pretty sucky to me, a big step back in individual freedom.

Quote:

3) can materials like CFRP get EVs to that extended range? Is the math as simple as a 50% reduction in weight leads to a doubling in range or are there non-linearities involved?

First, I'll point out that the Tesla S is around 1000 pounds heavier than comparable luxury sedans with normal gas engines. Batteries are just damn heavy and the drive units aren't exactly featherweights either.

Any weight savings through advances in materials will benefit ICE vehicles too, but it's unlikely the battery packs are going to get much lighter. We've been making batteries for a long time and there's not a lot left to discover that's economical and safe. So the Tesla S is likely to always be quite a bit heavier than similar class luxury sedans.

###

A lot of EV proponents/enthusiasts keep making the claim that tech improvements will make EVs viable--even make ICE vehicles obsolete!--but if you really think about the technology involved, that's just ignorant. Technology doesn't improve linearly. When it's young, it improves very rapidly, then it plateaus as it reaches maturity and only minor incremental improvements are made. And every single bit of tech other than the self driving stuff in these EVs is already mature. Electric motors and batteries have both been around for ~2 centuries. Electric vehicles themselves were invented like 175 years ago. I simply do not believe there will be some magical leap in the relevant technologies after such a long period of development.

And then even if we did manage to dramatically improve battery technology, there's the grid problem. The grid would need to be enormously beefed up to handle a bunch of cars charging at the same time. Or, we would have to submit to giving control of our chargers to the utility company so they could manage the grid load intelligently to avoid brown outs and failures. Again, back to the loss of individual freedom and independence.

And then there's the question of long term maintenance, even ignoring the battery life problem. Cars face a very hostile working environment. Huge temperature swings, constant vibration. That stuff is very rough on electrical connections. Add in things like lead-free solder that tends to whisker and short out over time and I see a very expensive maintenance schedule past the first 5-7 years or so of ownership. Meanwhile the typical ICE vehicle usually has a timing belt change as the most expensive maintenance item by 7 years, not including new tires, and it's quite normal for an ICE vehicle to last 12-15 years before needing a major repair (major defined as expensive, not necessarily difficult for an amateur mechanic to do). I've personally owned several 25-30 year old vehicles that only needed minor repairs over time. They still had the original engines and drivelines when I sold them, in good working order.

All in all, I think electric vehicles are a niche product, and they're never going to supplant ICE vehicles. If we do start running low on gasoline/diesel, I think we'll just end up using a different liquid fuel.

[The Beast1]

EVs along with self driving cars are this era's technological jokes. Self driving cars aren't going to be viable for quite a long time, probably upwards of 40-50 years. Manufacturers will make some sort of consortium where they'll try and get cities to hoist the cost of development onto the tax payers.

[dicknixon72]

EVs have their place for short-distance, low-usage purposes - urban commuters, retirees - and in circumstances where quiet operation is a necessity, though most of the advantages of a pure EV can be had in a traditional hybrid (Prius) or EREV (Volt).

I look at GM's Voltec system as the real 'winner' here - an electric vehicle where a powerplant is carried on board not to primarily provide traction power, but to recharge the electric batteries. The powerplant right now is a small direct-injection 4-cylinder, but could also be a Diesel, a fuel cell, CNG - whatever.

In the end, EVs probably have a place and the technology is maturing and I would trust an EV - just from a company that knows what they're doing and has turned a profit selling automobiles, not by selling ZEV carbon credits to other manufacturers.

[Hypno]

Tesla model 3 will have a max range of 215 miles, significantly less than some other models. But acceleration and handling should be comparable to a BMW 3.

I think we'll see the recharge times become comparable to a gasoline fill up within 5 years. Its in development.

I also think we'll see EV vehicles take a much bigger share - may be 10 years where they'll be the majority. Volvo just announced they are quitting internal combustion. Volvo probably looked into the recharging issue and everything else before making that decision.

As for self driving, you can get this now. Why are you guys so skeptical?

As for EVs, the real drawback is the range, but if they can solve the re-charge issue that goes away. The second drawback is battery life, but they are lasting longer than the skeptics thought, at least in moderate climates

EVs also should have better performance in a number of respects. First, they accelerate faster because there is no gearing. Second, they handle better because the absence of drive train means that the center of gravity can be lower. Third, there are fewer parts and less maintainance.

I'm not a fan of EVs yet but I think its inevitable that they replace the majority of gasoline powered cars.

[billbudsocket]

(07-10-2017 09:39 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

... First, they accelerate faster because there is no gearing. Second, they handle better because the absence of drive train means that the center of gravity can be lower. Third, there are fewer parts and less maintainance.

Which parts from an IC vehicle are not present in an EV? Because they still use radiators, 12v batteries, differentials, single speed gearboxes, etc. The only parts I can think of that are missing are drivelines, exhaust, and fuel tank but EVs have one to two electric motors, each with their own inverter.

[dicknixon72]

(07-10-2017 11:12 AM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 09:39 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

... First, they accelerate faster because there is no gearing. Second, they handle better because the absence of drive train means that the center of gravity can be lower. Third, there are fewer parts and less maintainance.

Which parts from an IC vehicle are not present in an EV? Because they still use radiators, 12v batteries, differentials, single speed gearboxes, etc. The only parts I can think of that are missing are drivelines, exhaust, and fuel tank but EVs have one to two electric motors, each with their own inverter.

Generally speaking, an EV does not have...
-Traditional Cooling System
-Transmission
-CV Joints or driveshafts/differentials
-Internal lubrication systems
-Fuel storage and distribution
-Exhaust and emissions equipment

An EV unto itself is certainly less mechanically-complex than an ICE vehicle and lacks many of an ICE car's failure points, namely seals and internally-lubricated parts, along with the emissions control and monitoring equipment.

[billbudsocket]

(07-10-2017 12:05 PM)dicknixon72 Wrote:  

Generally speaking, an EV does not have...
-Traditional Cooling System
-Transmission
-CV Joints or driveshafts/differentials
-Internal lubrication systems
-Fuel storage and distribution
-Exhaust and emissions equipment

An EV unto itself is certainly less mechanically-complex than an ICE vehicle and lacks many of an ICE car's failure points, namely seals and internally-lubricated parts, along with the emissions control and monitoring equipment.

Here's a Tesla drive unit. Note the CVs. And the electric park brakes, separate from the disc brakes. It has a gearbox the size of a truck's transfer case, for each axle. Is this less mechanically-complex than an ICE vehicle? EVs have battery, inverter, motor and gearbox coolant systems. They use electric pumps to circulate this fluid, just like in a IC car. Which seals are missing here?

[weambulance]

(07-10-2017 12:05 PM)dicknixon72 Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 11:12 AM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

(07-10-2017 09:39 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

... First, they accelerate faster because there is no gearing. Second, they handle better because the absence of drive train means that the center of gravity can be lower. Third, there are fewer parts and less maintainance.

Which parts from an IC vehicle are not present in an EV? Because they still use radiators, 12v batteries, differentials, single speed gearboxes, etc. The only parts I can think of that are missing are drivelines, exhaust, and fuel tank but EVs have one to two electric motors, each with their own inverter.

Generally speaking, an EV does not have...
-Traditional Cooling System
-Transmission
-CV Joints or driveshafts/differentials
-Internal lubrication systems
-Fuel storage and distribution
-Exhaust and emissions equipment

An EV unto itself is certainly less mechanically-complex than an ICE vehicle and lacks many of an ICE car's failure points, namely seals and internally-lubricated parts, along with the emissions control and monitoring equipment.

Yep, it trades a small pile of long-life, low-cost, easily replaced components for a couple short-life, insanely expensive and non-user-serviceable black boxes. And the most expensive parts of the vehicle is guaranteed to degrade significantly in a relatively short period, even if it isn't used.

Meanwhile, as pointed out above, a lot of the common wear parts an ICE vehicle has are still present. It doesn't steer or brake by magic.

I would say that yes, an EV is somewhat mechanically less complex on the whole. But it's a substantially more complex system, which is going to be quite difficult (as in, normally impossible for the owner) to repair mechanically, and that's going to be quite a bit harder to debug when non-mechanical problems crop up. Anyone who has ever tried to chase down an electrical problem in a modern ICE vehicle knows what I'm talking about.

[weambulance]

(07-10-2017 09:39 AM)Hypno Wrote:  

Tesla model 3 will have a max range of 215 miles, significantly less than some other models. But acceleration and handling should be comparable to a BMW 3.

I think we'll see the recharge times become comparable to a gasoline fill up within 5 years. Its in development.

Definitely not with the current battery chemistry.

And even if they do break the laws of physics to achieve such a thing without seriously degrading the life of the battery--the current fast charging lowers the life of the battery more than normal charging--it would require the charging stations to be 1-2 orders of magnitude more powerful than they are now. Who's going to pay for that? Tesla already discontinued offering new S buyers free charging, and if they have to upgrade their charging infrastructure significantly, they're going to have to increase their charging fees commensurately.

On the issue of money, something that hasn't been discussed much is the fact that at some point, EVs are going to have to pay a road tax. A big chunk of the price of liquid fuel is a tax to pay for the roads. EVs are skipping out on that entirely.

Quote:

I also think we'll see EV vehicles take a much bigger share - may be 10 years where they'll be the majority. Volvo just announced they are quitting internal combustion. Volvo probably looked into the recharging issue and everything else before making that decision.

I doubt EVs will be anything close to a majority share in 10 years. They're second vehicles at best, and lots of people do things that EVs can't do. Nobody is going to replace an SUV or truck with an EV, if they actually need the features their current vehicles have.

Nobody in my large extended family could get by with an EV as a primary vehicle except maybe a couple of my unmarried city-dwelling cousins.

Anyway, the average cost of EVs will have to drop enormously for it to even be a possibility. I have a nice car, it's not a luxury car but it has heated seats, AWD, it's fun to drive, good fuel efficiency etc. It can even tow a little. It cost $21,000 new. Even the shitty little urban commuter EVs with 50-80 mile range cost more than that without tax credits, and some of them cost more even with the tax credits.

Quote:

As for self driving, you can get this now. Why are you guys so skeptical?

Because I'm a software developer, I know how big the problem is, and how foolish it is to trust computers for such critical tasks. I will never, ever trust a self driving car. I guarantee you the software is not going through NASA-style rigorous auditing--they're beta testing their vehicles on public roads, FFS--and driving in traffic on the ground is perhaps counterintuitively a lot more complicated than flying through almost completely empty air/space.

I don't even want to be on the road around them. Especially not on a motorcycle. There are already cases of riders who are crippled for life because a self driving car didn't see them and rear ended them at a stop light. I always put bright red LEDs on the back of my bikes that flash when I'm hitting the brakes, which I trust humans to notice and heed. Will a self driving car notice that? Not reliably. They don't see the same way humans do. If they see the lights at all, they have no good way of guessing where the lights are in terms of relative distance.

Ultimately I expect self driving cars, and as a consequence all vehicles, will require something like transponders to help mitigate the problem of shitty detection systems that don't work properly in non-ideal conditions. And that is just another way for the government and big data to track people, but that's getting into a whole different realm of problems so I'll move on.

Quote:

As for EVs, the real drawback is the range, but if they can solve the re-charge issue that goes away. The second drawback is battery life, but they are lasting longer than the skeptics thought, at least in moderate climates

EVs also should have better performance in a number of respects. First, they accelerate faster because there is no gearing. Second, they handle better because the absence of drive train means that the center of gravity can be lower. Third, there are fewer parts and less maintainance.

You're not going to get around the weight problem. A moderately lower center of gravity only goes so far; when your vehicle weighs 700-1000 pounds more than the other vehicle, you're not handling as well.

I already addressed the maintenance issue in a previous post.

If EVs are so great, I think the government needs to butt out, stop subsidizing their development and giving tax credits, and let them stand on their own. If they can't stand, so be it. Same with all the other retarded climate-panic-driven technology.

As it is, the push for EVs is just part of a larger social engineering effort that I am not at all interested in seeing succeed.

[dicknixon72]

EVs work better in certain settings - Japan, Hawaii, small Western European nations - pretty much anywhere with a high-tech, dense, urban or population.

However, for the US at large, no. Range anxiety is the largest hurdle and one that won't be overcome for several generations of EVs.

[Hypno]

Here is an article that discusses existing rapid recharge techology that is already being deployed. 170 mile recharge in 30 minutes. Not perfect, but this already exists.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannmuller...63b7aa492d

I have been hearing hype about EVs and solar power for the last 40 years - literally. Yes, they have been hyped and subsidized well beyond their reality.

However, that reality may finally be catching up to the hype. I'm hardly an expert but when multiple, big money entrepreneurs (not talking about Musk) and automakers like Volvo start hopping on board, you have to ask what do they know?

If you look at the advantages of EVs - low center of gravity and quicker acceleration - they have the ability to deliver Porshe type performance for a Buick type price. A lot of people are going to trade their buick and ability to drive more than 200 miles for something that performs like a BMW or Porsche. So you will soon see all of the manufacturers come out with products that compete with Tesla. When that trend gets some steam, then you will have people put up the capital for more charging stations, better charging technology, etc. Until recently, the addressable market has been quite small and had been projected to be quite small, so the resources committed to second order problems like charging stations has been relatively minor.

Finally, for what its worth, I do not recommend you invest in Tesla. Its well overdue for a collapse, but that was true 2 years ago and you would have lost your shirt shorting it. Here is what investment writer Porter Stansberry said about Tesla stock in his free newsletter yesterday:

As we've explained many times, it's not that we have a problem with the company's products. Rather, it's Musk's questionable ethics, and the fact that the company's business model makes no sense...

Tesla is losing money on every car it sells. And that's despite forcing taxpayers to subsidize a huge portion of the cost. (More on this in a moment.) Yet its market valuation is absurd... It's valued at more than $800,000 per car it produces, compared with $25,000 per car for BMW and just $5,000 per car for General Motors (GM) and $6,000 per car for Ford Motor (F). Even if Musk succeeds and Tesla becomes a major automaker, today's investors are likely to lose money.

Of course, this has been the case for years... and the market has pushed the stock higher anyway. But today, there are signs that investors may finally be waking up to these risks.

Despite a continuing stream of mostly positive media coverage – including weekend fanfare around the production of its brand-new Model 3 sedan – the stock has been falling. As you can see in the following chart, shares have now fallen from an all-time high above $380 per share last month to as low as $308...
Meanwhile, the fundamental outlook for the company continues to deteriorate...

Remember, a huge portion of Tesla's revenues come from government subsidies. With these handouts, Tesla is a terrible business... Without them, it would be far worse. In fact, its very existence would be threatened.

[Hypno]

Re Self Driving Cars, this is another technology that is going to stick. Its not perfect yet, but it pretty good. If you think about human capacity to drive, its based on a couple of sensors - two eyes, two ears, and the sense of feeling motion, and a memory bank of driving rules, what other drivers do in various situations, etc. Self driving cars will have many more sensors and eventually will have superior memory banks and artificial intelligence. If you measure superior in terms of accidents avoided per mile driven, its probably superior now because of all the accidents caused by poor human drivers who are texting, drunk, whatever. Its not perfect yet but it is alread very good and its ability compounds with each mile driven.

[Suits]

ICE cars are clearly technologically inferior to EVs. The only way they are even able to compete is because they are permitted to offload much of their real costs to people who have no ability to object.

In a feature to feature comparison, EVs would win because ICEs simply cannot perform the same tasks.

[billbudsocket]

(07-11-2017 07:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  

ICE cars are clearly technologically inferior to EVs. The only way they are even able to compete is because they are permitted to offload much of their real costs to people who have no ability to object.

In a feature to feature comparison, EVs would win because ICEs simply cannot perform the same tasks.

Really? $30 in gas will buy more energy than a $35,000 85KW 1,100lb Tesla battery pack can store. And that battery pack's life is over for use in an EV after five years when it has degraded to 80% of it's original capacity. Where does that energy come from that recharges EV batteries? It comes from the inefficient electrical grid, which is also largely based on hydrocarbon based fuels.

Who is going to sell Telsa owners parts to work on their cars in five years? And the $10,000 scanning tool that will be needed to troubleshoot the electrical issues that are sure to come once it's outside of warranty.

[Suits]

(07-11-2017 09:28 AM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 07:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  

ICE cars are clearly technologically inferior to EVs. The only way they are even able to compete is because they are permitted to offload much of their real costs to people who have no ability to object.

In a feature to feature comparison, EVs would win because ICEs simply cannot perform the same tasks.

Really? $30 in gas will buy more energy than a $35,000 85KW 1,100lb Tesla battery pack can store. And that battery pack's life is over for use in an EV after five years when it has degraded to 80% of it's original capacity. Where does that energy come from that recharges EV batteries? It comes from the inefficient electrical grid, which is also largely based on hydrocarbon based fuels.

Who is going to sell Telsa owners parts to work on their cars in five years? And the $10,000 scanning tool that will be needed to troubleshoot the electrical issues that are sure to come once it's outside of warranty.

You're still not calculating all of the true variables of ICE use.

[weambulance]

(07-11-2017 09:28 AM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 07:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  

ICE cars are clearly technologically inferior to EVs. The only way they are even able to compete is because they are permitted to offload much of their real costs to people who have no ability to object.

In a feature to feature comparison, EVs would win because ICEs simply cannot perform the same tasks.

Really? $30 in gas will buy more energy than a $35,000 85KW 1,100lb Tesla battery pack can store. And that battery pack's life is over for use in an EV after five years when it has degraded to 80% of it's original capacity. Where does that energy come from that recharges EV batteries? It comes from the inefficient electrical grid, which is also largely based on hydrocarbon based fuels.

Who is going to sell Telsa owners parts to work on their cars in five years? And the $10,000 scanning tool that will be needed to troubleshoot the electrical issues that are sure to come once it's outside of warranty.

He's trolling, don't bother.

[Suits]

(07-11-2017 06:49 PM)weambulance Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 09:28 AM)billbudsocket Wrote:  

(07-11-2017 07:09 AM)Suits Wrote:  

ICE cars are clearly technologically inferior to EVs. The only way they are even able to compete is because they are permitted to offload much of their real costs to people who have no ability to object.

In a feature to feature comparison, EVs would win because ICEs simply cannot perform the same tasks.

Really? $30 in gas will buy more energy than a $35,000 85KW 1,100lb Tesla battery pack can store. And that battery pack's life is over for use in an EV after five years when it has degraded to 80% of it's original capacity. Where does that energy come from that recharges EV batteries? It comes from the inefficient electrical grid, which is also largely based on hydrocarbon based fuels.

Who is going to sell Telsa owners parts to work on their cars in five years? And the $10,000 scanning tool that will be needed to troubleshoot the electrical issues that are sure to come once it's outside of warranty.

He's trolling, don't bother.

I wish I could say that I was trolling, but this is no joke.

A car with an internal combustion engine is only able to compete with other transportation options because it is allowed to spread it's harmful bi-products wherever it pleases.

While an electric car currently is not competitive in terms of cost with an ICE propelled car, it has the distinct advantage that it can produce zero unmanaged waste. It would cost more to do so, but if the future demands that we do so to prevent our habitat from collapsing, it'll be an option. An ICE would not be an option in that scenario, because it simply produces too much byproduct in the process of creation locomotion for the byproduct to be contained.

Retired batteries may be harmful to the environment, but it is a byproduct that can be managed. In fact, doing so is very straightforward.

There may be significant portions of the human population that can be expected be in poverty well into the future of this planet, but not all. The potential environmental costs of the number of current daily car users doubling may be something even conservatives have trouble stomaching.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

Suits, how are electric cars not "spreading harmful bi-products wherever they please"? All of their fuel comes from equally polluting coal, oil and gas power plants or from country-sized renewable energy facilities and distribution infrastructure that cause huge amounts of pollution as well.

This is not to mention the fuel taxes that owners of classic vehicles have to pay and that have still not managed to make EVs competitive even at astronomical fuel tax rates in Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I love electric cars, but I'm just not seeing this unfair subsidy to internal combustion engines.

[Suits]

(07-12-2017 04:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Suits, how are electric cars not "spreading harmful bi-products wherever they please"? All of their fuel comes from equally polluting coal, oil and gas power plants or from country-sized renewable energy facilities and distribution infrastructure that cause huge amounts of pollution as well.

This is not to mention the fuel taxes that owners of classic vehicles have to pay and that have still not managed to make EVs competitive even at astronomical fuel tax rates in Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I love electric cars, but I'm just not seeing this unfair subsidy to internal combustion engines.

Electric cars do not "spread" anything, unless the driver or passengers are engaged in the act of littering.

The electricity that powers that cars could come from many sources, cheaper sources that pollute heavily or more expensive sources that do not pollute significantly.

ICE cars have no choice but to pollute no matter how what source their energy supply comes from.

[Hypno]

EVs have a pollution advantage on ICEs only if you assume that EVs are powered by non-carbon-based fuel, like solar or hydro. EVs may replace ICEs but they don't create any marginal demand for non-carbon based power; in other words, just because people drive EVs doesn't mean more hydro dams or solar panels got built. At best you can say is that EVs effectively net shift some power generation from oil to nat gas which is somewhat cleaner. But some power plants are fueled by coal or nuke, the former being clearly more polluting than petoleum and the latter arguably so, and nat gas still has half the pollution of petroleum, so its misleading to say its zero emissions because the power plant has emissions.

On batteries, critics have said that batter life drops precipitously. Those criticisms so far have proven exaggerated, at least in mild climates. I have a neighbor with a Tesla S which may be 5-6 years old now and she claims very little batter degradation. Interestingly, she chose it because she commutes from the exurbs to downtown and can use the HOV lane. So rather than stemming consumption, the environmental benefits in her case spurred greater consumption.

[weambulance]

The Tesla S came out 5 years 3 weeks ago, for reference.

If Tesla has managed to make magical batteries that don't degrade, where no other company has managed it, I want them making batteries for all my devices. Every single Li-ion battery powered device I've ever owned has shown significant battery capacity loss inside 3 years. My laptop is about 4.5 years old and has 55% remaining battery capacity. My old iPhone 4S, which is a little under 5 years old, has like 25% original capacity. I can throw out a dozen examples of Li-ion battery packs that definitely did degrade with use, but none that magically only degraded a tiny amount, or--as some Tesla maniacs claim--got better with age.

If people are getting their reported battery capacity from the car itself, that means nothing at all. The only way to really know the battery pack capacity is to run the car almost dry along the same route periodically, see how far you got, and see how it changes over time. Not too many people are doing that (none, in fact, that I've found have actually done that obvious test). If you only drive 60 miles a day, and your battery goes from 300 miles of ideal capacity to 180 miles, you won't even notice the difference until that one time you need to make a long trip.

Since it's such a PR issue, it would also be trivially easy for Tesla to fudge the numbers. Even for real-world testing. The obvious way of doing it is simply overprovisioning the original battery pack--give it more capacity than it needs for the base range--then artificially limiting range. Maybe the original pack has 400 miles of real range, but they only let it run 250-300. Then over time, as mileage increases, let the battery discharge to a lower point as the capacity drops. Net result = no apparent change in capacity over the first several years, even though there was actually a significant drop.

Some EV/hybrids are built with an overprovisioned battery for sure. It's a known technique. Many good SSDs work the same way; they have a whole block of spare cells to replace worn cells as the drive ages. Perception that the expensive device is long-lived and durable is much more important than absolute base capacity.

But that game only goes so far, and eventually the battery will start to show its degradation at the real rate. For people who buy vehicles expecting to drive them into the ground, that's a serious problem. But if you only keep your vehicles for 5-7 years you're not going to care.

[The Beast1]

(07-12-2017 05:00 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(07-12-2017 04:05 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Suits, how are electric cars not "spreading harmful bi-products wherever they please"? All of their fuel comes from equally polluting coal, oil and gas power plants or from country-sized renewable energy facilities and distribution infrastructure that cause huge amounts of pollution as well.

This is not to mention the fuel taxes that owners of classic vehicles have to pay and that have still not managed to make EVs competitive even at astronomical fuel tax rates in Europe.

Don't get me wrong, I love electric cars, but I'm just not seeing this unfair subsidy to internal combustion engines.

Electric cars do not "spread" anything, unless the driver or passengers are engaged in the act of littering.

The electricity that powers that cars could come from many sources, cheaper sources that pollute heavily or more expensive sources that do not pollute significantly.

ICE cars have no choice but to pollute no matter how what source their energy supply comes from.

Everything has a material cost. EVs aren't any better than ICE vehicles. At least carbon helps plants grow. Nothing is going to grow in that toxic lake.