backtop


Print 144 comment(s) - last by Keeir.. on Feb 15 at 3:13 PM

Tesla Motors follows up on the Model S with the Model X

Tesla Motors made a big splash onto the electric car scene with its Roadster. While pricey at roughly $100,000, the two-seater was praised for its peppy performance, excellent handling, and sleek styling.
 
Tesla Motors' second entry into the electric vehicle market isn't even publicly available yet, but its 2012 production run is already sold out. The Model S is a gorgeous sedan that ranges in price from $57,400 to $87,400 (before a $7,500 tax credit). The base model has a 40 kWh lithium-ion battery pack and has a 160-mile range. The top-end model comes with an 85 kWh lithium-ion battery and can travel up to 300 miles on a charge.
 
With development of the second generation Roadster currently underway and the Model S gearing up for a Summer '12 public introduction, Tesla Motors is turning its attention to a hot segment in the automotive space: crossovers.


Tesla Model X [Source: Automobile Magazine]
 
The company today unveiled its Model X crossover which is based on the Model S' chassis (albeit with a 4-inch longer wheelbase). Given its roots, it should come as no surprise that the Model X looks like vertically stretched Model S with increased ride height.

However, the most interesting design feature of the Model X is its rear "Falcon Doors". Instead traditionally hinged doors mounted in the B-pillar, the Model X's rear door hinges are in the roof. This allows the doors to swing upwards, and should draw quite a few stares on the trip down to the local Target.

 [Source: Automobile Magazine]
 
According to the New York Times, the Model X will be available in three battery capacities (40, 60, and 85 kWh) and will make the sprint from 0 to 60 mph in around 4.4 seconds. Automobile Magazine adds that the Model X will come standard with a rear-mounted 300hp electric motor, but a 150hp front-mounted motor will be optional to make the vehicle AWD. In addition, the maximum driving range for the Model X is said to be between 214 to 267 miles.


Pricing hasn't been announced yet, but Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk says the pricing for the Model X will be similar to that of the Model S. Tesla Motors will begin taking pre-orders for the Model X this Friday at Noon PST.


Holy sunlight glare, Batman! [Source: Motor Trend]

Sources: New York Times, Automobile Magazine



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

wonderful
By ianweck on 2/9/2012 11:17:50 PM , Rating: 3
Another car I can't afford.




RE: wonderful
By powerwerds on 2/10/2012 12:10:20 AM , Rating: 2
The back doors do make it look like its about to take flight.


RE: wonderful
By Solandri on 2/10/2012 1:32:37 AM , Rating: 3
I thought they were called gull-wing doors. Since when have they been called falcon doors?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gull-wing_door


RE: wonderful
By de704 on 2/10/2012 1:42:09 AM , Rating: 3
Tesla \ Elon Musk calls them Falcon doors because they bend at the top corner when opened so they don't swing out too far.

Plus Elon Musk also owns SpaceX and they have a rocket called the Falcon 9.


RE: wonderful
By acer905 on 2/10/2012 12:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
The DeLorean DMC-12's gull wing doors only need 11 inches extra space to open, so they take up much less space than traditional doors.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 6:11:12 PM , Rating: 1
Errr.. so your point is that normal gull-wing doors would have been okay for the Model X?

The greater the size of the angle between the line from the hinge to the edge of the door and the line through the hinge parallel to the ground, the greater the space required to rotate the door open.

Some rough back of the evenlope calculations suggest the Model X would require ~30inch of space on each side to open the traditional fixed gull-wing doors. But either way, its significant greater than the 11" required for the low sleek DMC.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 1:49:37 AM , Rating: 2
I agree... but in the past, Gull-wing doors have pretty much been a coupe car/plane/etc feature.

Rear Gull-Wing doors might be fair to get a special mention/name... ::Shrug::


RE: wonderful
By FredEx on 2/10/2012 11:46:42 PM , Rating: 2
I gull-wing door is only hinged at the point they attach to the vehicle. These doors are hinged at the point they attach to the vehicle and just above the window. They are a little different than a typical gull-wing then.

Somebody else commented about clearance in a garage...they open below a typical open garage door.


RE: wonderful
By TSS on 2/10/2012 12:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
Well atleast it's cheaper than the roadster, which was their goal from the start so it's nice to see their moving along. First time i've ever heard of model X though, guess they are taking advantage of their succes.

Though i'm less skeptical i'm still skeptical enough about the next 2 generations, which should drop the price to around then below the volt. While it's clear now tesla can make it at the high end i seriously wonder if their strategy holds up when the economic scale is increased. Basically they've gone from $100,000 for a 53KWh pack and a 220 mile charge to $87,400 for a 85KWh pack and a 300 mile charge.

IMO they've got the charge right. 300 miles should be enough for everybody between refills. Once you can charge that in ~30 minutes, that's taken care of too. The only challenge left, for tesla then, is dropping that $87,400 to ~$20,000. Then we have a viable alternative for gas powered cars.

But i don't see that happening in 2 generations. I don't even see that happening in 5 generations. We'll need a whole new approach to batteries for that. It's not impossible by any stretch of the imagination but it's not gonna happen soon.

And even if it did it'll take you more then 5 generations of tesla cars to get your national electrical grid in order. So i applaud their progress, but i still doubt their succes.


RE: wonderful
By kingmotley on 2/10/12, Rating: -1
RE: wonderful
By Shadowself on 2/10/2012 8:01:34 AM , Rating: 4
Where do you think 99+% of garages get their electrical power? (Hint: it's the national electric grid.)


RE: wonderful
By jbartabas on 2/10/2012 12:51:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where do you think 99+% of garages get their electrical power? (Hint: it's the national electric grid.)


I am assuming he understood it as "a national network of charging stations", namely the equivalent of what we have now for gasoline.

Or, as you've eluded to, he is among the tiny fraction of people who have their garage outlet connected straight to their own nuke plant/wind turbine/solar panels/hamster running in a wheel ...


RE: wonderful
By Spuke on 2/10/2012 9:53:01 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why would I need a national electric grid?
Did you actually just say this?


RE: wonderful
By FITCamaro on 2/10/2012 7:20:17 AM , Rating: 3
300 miles to a charge (supposedly and I'm sure its under ideal conditions) is good. The recharge time is not. When it can hit 300 miles to a charge AND recharge in 10 minutes, I'd consider it.

But not at $90,000.


RE: wonderful
By Spuke on 2/10/2012 6:03:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When it can hit 300 miles to a charge AND recharge in 10 minutes, I'd consider it.
I need 500 miles or 350 miles with the A/C on, 4 adults with luggage while going up the hill outside of Baker when it's 116 F outside doing 75 mph. And throw in that same recharge time too.


RE: wonderful
By topkill on 2/15/2012 2:15:11 PM , Rating: 1
Well, then unless someone is holding a gun to your head then i wouldn't buy one. That's why some people get to drive pickups or SUVs and some people get to drive 2 seat sports cars.

Really cool thing we have called choice! So why are you griping about this?

Do you guys get onto announcements about pickups and bitch about how they don't work for you?


RE: wonderful
By OoklaTheMok on 2/10/2012 12:33:22 AM , Rating: 2
I was at the Tesla store this past weekend, and I overheard one of the salesman state that the crossover will be in the $30k's...


RE: wonderful
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/10/2012 12:35:12 AM , Rating: 2
Hahaha, when pigs fly.


RE: wonderful
By Spuke on 2/10/2012 12:43:04 AM , Rating: 2
LOL! Riiiiight!! You would think that at that price point Tesla could afford to get better salesman than the one's found at your local Chevy dealer (to be fair where I live the Toyota salesman are the worst BY FAR).


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 1:51:56 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe without the battery?


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 8:53:55 AM , Rating: 4
But some people can. I'm asking myself why in the hell are we subsidizing purchases over $50k!? If you can buy this vehicle, you don't need help.


RE: wonderful
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 2/10/2012 8:58:08 AM , Rating: 3
Another thing I agree with Reclaimer on, sheesh! :)

In fact, I don't think we should be subsidizing cars AT ALL at ANY PRICE LEVEL. If you can't afford a car at a certain price point, buy a cheaper car or buy used.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 9:14:52 AM , Rating: 1
Watch out I'm contagious! :P

Anyway I guess I'll get voted down for that one too. I don't know what's going on anymore when people think these are appropriate uses of taxpayer money. Cash for Clunkers, massive EV subsidies on cars for rich people, Ethanol BS....sigh. We're even spending billions to give people free cell phones. I mean come on already!

Damnit, posting before I've had coffee again. Let me take the gun out of my mouth and go fix that.

quote:
In fact, I don't think we should be subsidizing cars AT ALL at ANY PRICE LEVEL. If you can't afford a car at a certain price point, buy a cheaper car or buy used.


Yes but the point of these subsidies aren't to help you get into a car. It's to help you get into a car featuring Government backed and approved technology. This is what I keep trying to get across. We're allowing the Federal Government, which has no legal Constitutional mandate to do this, pick winners and losers in our "free" market.

I mean does anyone hear me on this? Am I talking to walls?


RE: wonderful
By Spuke on 2/10/2012 10:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean does anyone hear me on this? Am I talking to walls?
I hear ya! I really don't understand why luxuries have become necessities. When I was younger I was poor and couldn't afford some of the things that even the middle class had. Yeah, it sucked but I didn't go asking people to give me what they had. They earned it so I should do the same. What's interesting is my family is fairly liberal and believes in most of the social programs we have even though we consider it shameful to be on welfare. We were all raised to get an education and if we wanted something we had to EARN it.


RE: wonderful
By JediJeb on 2/10/2012 2:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
if we wanted something we had to EARN it.


This is exactly what needs to be taught in schools now instead of "you are number one no matter how well you do" or "you deserve the best" or "there are no losers, only winners".

I have seen so many new hires where this is their first real job get so depressed once they finally realize that good things only come to them if they work hard, and when they just don't work only bad things happen. Just a month ago we had a girl who was hired as a microbiologist and quit after two days when she saw how much work she had to do.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 2:53:05 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you Spuke. You gave me my Jerry McGuire "now who's with me?" moment :D


RE: wonderful
By Spuke on 2/10/2012 6:56:11 PM , Rating: 2
No problem dude. :)


RE: wonderful
By Ramtech on 2/11/2012 1:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
You should ban movies where family is unhappy because their father spends excessive amount of time in work xD


RE: wonderful
By Rukkian on 2/10/2012 9:13:52 AM , Rating: 1
While I do agree in theory, I also know that new technology always needs some funding to get to a viable stage. This is not just for cars, there are alot of technologies that need assistance to get started, then when the econmy of scale starts, the prices can come down and competition starts to really push innovation.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 9:26:38 AM , Rating: 1
We're in the middle of a debt crisis, and paying rich people with taxpayer money we don't have (debt) to buy a gimmick play toy is just an absurd thing. How much more clear can it get? Where's your common sense?

I'm tired of hearing that the people who make this country work and pay taxes need to tighten their belts and live "within their means". Well, so does the Government! It's time to tighten that belt.

Tesla can succeed or fail on their own, just like pretty much every other business has to (that's not making a political/environmental statement). Their funding should come from the private sector, and their sales should NOT be subsidized.


RE: wonderful
By tayb on 2/10/2012 9:44:23 AM , Rating: 1
I disagree. This type of technology research needs to be funded and funded hard. Our reliance on foreign oil is absolutely killing us and may or may not be the reason we are spending trillions overseas in military conflicts. We can't remain on gasoline cars forever and counting on the open market to invest billions in battery research and advancement would take far too long.

Any amount of money we invest in these types of companies we'll make back in the long run. Does it benefit the rich? For now it does because they'll be buying these cars but the technology will eventually trickle down to the middle and lower class. The government funding is attempting to expedite that process.

Of all the things we waste money on I don't believe this is one that should be cut.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 9:56:21 AM , Rating: 1
You're living in fantasy land. This isn't "technology funding", this is luxury vehicle subsidies!

Secondly this will NOT reduce our need for "foreign oil". You're living in fantasy land. Even if passenger vehicles like this somehow become practical, you'll never see viable electric powered semi-trucks and industrial vehicles. There sure as hell isn't a viable replacement fuel for aircraft. And as soon as our population grows, we'll be right back to current or higher oil consumption levels.

Biofuels is a MUCH better way to go than EV technology.

quote:
Our reliance on foreign oil is absolutely killing us


Because we aren't using our own! We're doing insane things like cancelling billion dollar pipeline projects and blocking offshore drilling. You're in favor of hurting our country right now, and stiffing our economy, in the promise that at some point in the future we can all drive EV's! If EV's are the future, great! But for right now, why are we paying $3/gal gas?

Musk is just getting richer while fools like you think he's trying to change the world. And you're helping him do it.

If you want to fund this stuff, YOU write him the goddamn checks. Leave me out of it.


RE: wonderful
By tayb on 2/10/2012 10:11:44 AM , Rating: 2
Luxury vehicle funding would be giving a tax break to buy a Porsche. It's a nice statement but it isn't found in reality. This is a company investing a lot of money in battery technology and electric propulsion vehicles. Are the cars they make luxurious? Sure.

You would have probably been one of the people that said "We'll never get to the moon. You're living in a fantasy world if you think a rocket can get to the moon." This technology is at an infant level. It will get better and it will eventually power everything you just described. But it certainly won't if we don't invest in research.

I am not anti-pipelines or off shore drilling but we could never create enough oil to match our consumption. Funding these types of companies is not hurting our country or stifling our economy.

We're paying $3 a gallon for gas for thousands of reasons. Of those thousands of reasons EV funding is one of the few that could actually have an extremely positive return on investment. It's not wasteful spending. War is wasteful spending.

How about this. I'll leave you out of the funding and when battery tech has evolved an order of magnitude in 15 years and we have cars that get 3,000 miles a charge you are barred from purchasing them. Should be fair enough.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: wonderful
By tayb on 2/10/2012 10:32:18 AM , Rating: 2
Are you capable of arguing without getting red in the face and resorting to childish name calling? I'd love to refute the several erroneous statements you just made but I'd rather not argue with an infant. If you want to have a reasonable discussion about the issue that's fine but you don't see capable of such dialogue.

Carry on with your diatribe.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 10:39:32 AM , Rating: 1
There's nothing to argue about. Your entire opinion and position is wrong on all counts. You go against free market principles and, frankly, lose on ethical and moral grounds as well.

If you want an electric car, buy one. Most people wont. This is not an appropriate use of Government funds during a looming debt crisis. And yes, there are MANY inappropriate uses of those funds going on today. But hey, gotta start somewhere.


RE: wonderful
By tayb on 2/10/2012 10:46:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Your entire opinion and position is wrong on all counts. You go against free market principles and, frankly, lose on ethical and moral grounds as well.


Well, since you said so! No sense in "arguing" with someone who thinks an opinion can be wrong.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: wonderful
By tayb on 2/10/2012 12:12:48 PM , Rating: 2
Well this is where we'll have to agree to disagree on green subsidies. I would certainly like more oil refineries, off shore drilling, and pipelines such as the Texas -> Canada line being green lighted and built. They are good for us now and good for us in the near term future. I'm not against any of that. In fact I commented on this very site that the deepwater horizon and Japan earthquake disasters would be bad for us because they would be major setbacks to nuclear and drilling plans. (I was wrong about nuclear. Several new plants have been greenlighted.)

Where we disagree is where we see the direction of the EV market. I think that it is an infant market in need of funding and can picture a point in time where an ICEV is vastly inferior to an EV and we're using 30% of the oil we used to use. With that statement in mind I don't see a problem subsidizing the purchase of these vehicles so companies such as Tesla keep investing in the market and driving the costs to an affordable level for ME.

I understand your point though. If you see EV as a dead end any investment or subsidy is a complete waste. I don't see them as a dead end I see them as the solution which is why we disagree. It's not realistic to expect us to drop our oil consumption anytime soon but we'll never be able to do it if we don't start somewhere.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 1:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If you see EV as a dead end any investment or subsidy is a complete waste. I don't see them as a dead end I see them as the solution which is why we disagree.


I see EV as the solution AND I disagree with Government's providing subsidies to businesses... especially in times where the Government is borrowing heavily from our future. (A little bit of Government borrowing is health and normal. Spending more than 30% of your yearly revenue? Not so good)

In Tesla's case, its pretty silly. A 10% discount! If someone buys a product for 85-95% of its face value, then they have a high likelyhood of buying it for 100% of the face value when there are no other alternate goods.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 1:57:19 PM , Rating: 2
Tayb I've misjudged you on this. I only wish you had posted this sooner so we had a better understanding. I regret some of the things I've said to you.

Here's where I'm coming from. Ethanol subsidies alone have cost us $45 billion. Wind, solar, and EV's...who knows. I don't have the numbers, but it's safe to say we've spend hundreds of billions for a green pipe dream. And not a single winning or even competitive technology has sprouted from this spending spree.

Any politician who talks of a green, utopian US – where wind and solar produce most of our energy, electric cars put power back into the grid, green fields of corn produce clean fuels, and millions of Americans work in green technology factories – is creating a fanciful vision so far detached from reality it should really be called a lie.

Now was I unfairly singling out Tesla to vent? Perhaps yes. But I see it as part of a larger problem. Where we're literally selling our future today, for a fantasy that will leave us crippled as a nation and uncompetitive in the global market. Democrats and other left leaning people love using China as an example for things. Well, do we see China spending massive amount of revenue on green initiatives and putting themselves into debt?

Now let me be clear. Some of these technologies, including EV's, might not be dead ends. I'm not saying the EV is a dead end. However at some point we have to examine this green goldmine where year after year billions of dollars are poured into a black hole which produces no products and goods. And the ones it does, are perennial losers.

quote:
I think that it is an infant market in need of funding and can picture a point in time where an ICEV is vastly inferior to an EV and we're using 30% of the oil we used to use.


Tayb, can you think of any technology with a supposed winning potential, that's taken this long or that much money to get to the market and be competitive. Or at least able to stand on it's own? I can't. It's not even feasible to imagine a day where this can happen, where ICEV is "vastly inferior" to EV. How could such a thing even be possible? And is it truly worth the cost?

You made an analogy to me about going to the Moon. I respectfully suggest this isn't like going to the Moon. This is like trying to get to the Moon and back on nothing but a car battery and a solar panel.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 2:17:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Ethanol subsidies alone have cost us $45 billion. Wind, solar, and EV's...who knows.


A gift for you

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/200...

While far from complete for government spending and ending in 2008, its a goldmine of dollar figures for government energy disasters.

Also fairly enlighting is that to date the US Federal Government has essentially spent the same funding Fossil Fuels research and Renewable Engergy research, which are each far less than Nuclear. Curious that the Federal Government would still need to spend so much money researching technology that existed for hundreds of years


RE: wonderful
By Joseph Wallace on 2/10/2012 11:34:17 PM , Rating: 1
Strange how thinking people cannot figure out how much it is costing us to protect oil shipping lanes with aircraft carriers and warships. I am more conservative than any of you, but I have a brain and can think for myself. I don't get wrapped into that stupid republican talking points that originate from big oil. I never heard one republican complain about trillions spent on protecting oil, but the relative pennies it costs us to create a whole new industry in alternative energy, and all of the sudden republicans become conservative.
Yes, I am conservative, I voted for Reagan, Bush 1 twice, Bush 2 twice, I love guns, Ted Nugent and agree with Ron Paul when he said in his book to legalize auto fire weapons.
I will never vote republican again until they start smarting up and stop these political attacks on American products and American innovation.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/11/2012 2:56:30 AM , Rating: 2
Joseph, your really doing nothing there.

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus...

Our largest source of Imported Oil is Canada, and I am sure it takes alot of aircraft carrier to protect the US/Canada border.

I know, its hip and cool to talk about the defense budget as if it all goes to protect oil or somesuch. But, it might be nice if you furnished some numbers or analysis of actual spending for oil? I please try to keep in mind that if the US spent trillions in Iraq, a great portion went to help the Iraqi people achieve certain goals. Prior to the US invasion, Iraq was producing oil at under the market rate, so its really tough to see how that "war" was about oil. The end outcome was a several year disruption of oil pumping and a destabilization of prices for several more. All to gain a tiny little trickle of oil to the US? (Iraq imports count for the same as Angola) This by the way was completely predictable.

And a little help, Ron Paul is a Libertarian. He is not really very conservative as it applies to US politics. Nor would I think your feeling about guns or Ted Nugent have any baring on your attempted points.


RE: wonderful
By Joseph Wallace on 2/11/2012 11:05:22 AM , Rating: 2
From that link you showed me, it looks like we are giving away a lot of our money to foreign countries for oil. Are you ok with this?
A true conservative should not be ok with all this transfer of wealth. If we can keep that money here by developing alternatives made in USA, that would be great.
When I said trillions I was not talking about just in recent years. Although I did see it on the news that it cost us over a trillion to protect oil just in 10 years. But I am not arguing the figure. We all know the figure is there and whatever the cost is, I do not see one republican on tv complaining about the cost to taxpayers for oil.
You know as well as I do that all this hoopla about spending relative pennies on creating USA energy and a whole new industry is just politics, which is hurting America. Suddenly republicans all become conservative when talking about a few billion for USA innovation, but never cared about the past 40 years on protecting oil. Surely it cost us trillions in 40 years to protect oil, but whatever the amount, where are the republicans complaining about this?
I will not vote republican again until they stop attacking USA brands, USA innovation, & USA domestic energy, and stop attacking our auto companies. This is nothing less than treason to attack American products when our economy is so bad. Please leave the country, go to Japan or China where you can love the ugly cars they build. BTW Toyota recalling for fires just in the news. Wow, gas cars catch fire too:)


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/11/2012 12:23:16 PM , Rating: 2
You say you're conservative but speak as if the only oil on the planet is from the Middle East, then parrot leftist talking point about the fantasy that is nation wide EV usage. A whole new industry? Sir please. As a Conservative you of all people know there IS no such viable industry. "Green industries" are nothing but a special interest goldmine and a political ploy.

I'm not defending ANY policy that prevents using our own resources or blocks domestic drilling and pipeline projects. I don't see, however, how that means I MUST be for the current Middle East policies. That's a massive disconnect.

quote:
A true conservative should not be ok with all this transfer of wealth. If we can keep that money here by developing alternatives made in USA, that would be great.


Of course that would be great! Back to reality, however, this is a country with more cars than people. And a massive nationwide/international airline industry. Not to mention all the heavy domestic trucking we need. You act as if we can magically survive without oil. Oil, you know, the lubricant of our entire economy and society? What kind of Conservative are you again?

We can keep that money here. But developing and using our OWN resources in parallel with alternative energy. Liberals, however, are convinced alternative energy cannot compete with oil unless they forcibly choke off the supply of it and drive the price up. How is this the fault of Republicans again? Did Republicans use the EPA to declare CO2 a poison? Did Republicans place a Congressional ban on drilling? Did Republicans block the Canada>Texas pipeline and place a memorandum on offshore drilling?

You can't even identify the real enemy in your ranting. The Democrats and the green lobby, which guzzle up billions of dollars, have placed us in this situation. Of course we have to rely on foreign oil if we cannot use our own. Oil MUST be used, there's no other option. If we can't get it here, we have to get it somewhere else. Where is your common sense man?

You're a conservative with absolutely no faith or knowledge of capitalism. One of our key ideological principles. I'm truly baffled. Comments like this lead me this conclusion:

quote:
From that link you showed me, it looks like we are giving away a lot of our money to foreign countries for oil.


If you're getting a product in return, we don't call that "giving money away". In our book, that's called a purchase.

quote:
This is nothing less than treason to attack American products when our economy is so bad.


Oh please. You go too far. Nobody is "attacking" anything. And making up treason charges is embarrassing.


RE: wonderful
By Joseph Wallace on 2/11/2012 2:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
Just to clarify, I am ok with protecting oil and trying to keep the price down. We need oil and we need it to be as low as possible to keep the economy going. What I am pointing out here is a political bias in the republican party. I know democrats are losers, we already know that. I am pointing out how ridiculous the republican party has become. To attack American auto brands rather than nurturing them and make America great. Don't believe it? Look up Foxnews Neil Cavuto on youtube and see how often he calls Volt owners stupid or guests that he has that call Volt owners stupid. Meanwhile the Volt has won more awards than any car on the road. I had an email conversation with Morano, a guest on Foxnews. He actually admitted to me that it is all political to him to try and get back at Obama. So republicans use American brands to bash the president. Sorry, I want nothing of that. Bring me back the republicans that stood for America, like Reagan that saved Chrysler and would intimidate Japan to self limit imports. Bring me back Bush 2 that bailed out the auto companies because he knew that they are a cash cow for the US gov. All those workers pay tax.
I will not vote republican until they change back again and put America first, and stop attacking our companies.
I am an extreme conservative that will vote against Romney & Newt if they go against Obama. I would vote for Ron Paul. I don't know about Santorum yet.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/11/2012 8:22:23 PM , Rating: 2
Chrysler is 60% owned by Fiat, they aren't an "American brand". Secondly nobody is attacking the "brand" of GM, the Volt is just a political lightning rod. The sales numbers are so poor it seems you're blaming "Republicans" for something that the consumers have rejected en-mass. I suggest to you that if "Republicans" had that kind of influence on the national level just from Fox News, Obama wouldn't even be in office in the first place.

quote:
Meanwhile the Volt has won more awards than any car on the road.


Not even worth proving to you how false this statement is. Not it has not. Not even close.

quote:
I had an email conversation with Morano, a guest on Foxnews. He actually admitted to me that it is all political to him to try and get back at Obama.


That's between you and him. What's this mean to me? You could be making it up, I don't know. And again, this is ONE person, not "Republicans".

quote:
I am an extreme conservative


No you are not. You cannot be in support of corporate bailouts and be an "extreme conservative".

quote:
I would vote for Ron Paul.


Maybe you should LISTEN to Ron Paul. He's a Libertarian (more extreme than Conservatives) and he's never supported the things you're talking about.

"This week the bailout of the Big Three automakers was under heavy consideration in Congress’s lame duck session. I have always opposed government bailouts of private organizations. Back in 1979 Congress had hearings about bailing out Chrysler and I was on record pointing out that these types of policies are foolish and very damaging to the long term economic health of our country. They still are."

-Ron Paul-

You were saying?

quote:
Bring me back the republicans that stood for America, like Reagan that saved Chrysler


He didn't "save Chrysler". Again, look at what Ron Paul is trying to tell you. That's why these things are BAD for the market and as a Conservative you should be against them.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/11/2012 2:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Although I did see it on the news that it cost us over a trillion to protect oil just in 10 years.


Sigh. Something traceable please.

Although I did see it on the news that it cost us over a single dollar to protect oil just in 100 years.

Just as valid as your statement.

quote:
Surely it cost us trillions in 40 years to protect oil, but whatever the amount, where are the republicans complaining about this?


Possibly. Maybe some sort of fact checked estimate would be better?

The US Government has also spent 250 Billion + researching new forms of energy

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/wiredscience/200...

Hardly what I would call pennies.


RE: wonderful
By Joseph Wallace on 2/11/2012 2:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
You ever heard a republican complain about taxpayers paying to protect oil.
You know as well as I do, this is all political. If Obama was against electric cars, the republicans would love them. I hate this political bias crap.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 12:54:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Biofuels is a MUCH better way to go than EV technology.


Why?

Here is one issue I see. With Corn Ethanol (E85), you would be lucky to get 400 gallons per acre per year and of course there is 60 gallons of gasoline still used, let alone the energy required to farm it. I've seen figures for 50 gallons for ethanol proponets and 150 gallons from ehtanol haters. I'll split the difference then. Thats a generous total of 12,000 miles produced from 160 gallons of gasoline and 1 acre of farmland usage for 1 year (Assuming Cruze FlexFuel Car). Hmmm thats pretty good.

Of course a Prius Hybrid type would require only 240 gallons of gasoline, so moving from the current gasoline electric hybrid to the Cruze FlexFuel on E85 would save trade ~7000 lbs of corn for 80 gallons of gas, but maybe we could make a hybrid that also used E85. Lets just say using E85 is likely to save ~200 gallons of gasoline per year.

Anyway, that same acre of Cropland (in Nebraska) has around 8.13 GWh of solar energy falling on it. If we used solar panels to capture around 15% of this energy and lose another 25% getting this Solar based Electric Energy to market, that means we could pump around 900 MWh of electricity into someone's home. Using ~35 kWh per 100 miles that seems reasonable from EPA testing, that 900 MWh is capable of powering a car for 2.5 million miles.

Gosh is that right?!?
Nebraska typically gets 5.5 kWh/m2/day (NREL, Fixed Flat Plate tilted South)
A year has 365 days
An acre has ~4050 m2

Yep 8.13 GWh.

So in conclusion, the Biofuel typically used in the US currently has the capacity of saving us ~200 gallons of gas per acre per year of crop land. A Solar installation with EVs is likely to save us 83,000 gallons of gasoline per acre per year.

But surely thats not fair! Corn Ethanol is bad bad bad. Well, even if we switch to the best crops, its going to be difficult to save more than 2,000 gallons of gas per acre per year of crop land.

Does it cost alot of build and maintain the solar installation? Yes.

Does EVs cost alot currently? Yes.

Would we need to fix the power grid? Yes.

But EVs would make at worst a 3400% better usage of cropland than Biofuels and currently 34000% better usage.

This is not really a completely clear picture. Biofuels made from otherwise waste products are definately a good idea. Personally, a way to combine benifit of Biofuels from waste and much better efficieny of EVs would be the way to go.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 2:02:07 PM , Rating: 2
Keeri I said bio-fuels. Why are you talking about corn ethanol? Bio-fuels mean algae based or other organic/synthetic fuels. I certainly would NEVER endorse corn ethanol.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 6:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why are you talking about corn ethanol?


Only Bio-fuel with significant US data. Algae still doesn't have any real data outside of test centers.

The US government has spent billions researching synthetic and algae based fuels with very little to show... yet. But its really hard to see how 1 acre of land will produce 2.5 million miles. I'd guess thats 60,000 or so BioDiesel. The most optomistic guesstimate comes from this article at 3,000 gallons per acre per year (From a New York Times article about Colorado installation in 2008 that DailyTech won't let me post a link to)

Which of course doesn't detail any of the costs involved.

Regardless, the Solar Power produces 60/3 or 20 times the miles... this is using basic solar power tech versus optomistic biofuels. Using existing proven data, its more like 40+ times.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 8:22:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US government has spent billions researching synthetic and algae based fuels with very little to show


You mean just like EV's, Solar Power, and wind alternative energy sources? Trying to claim these are any more tangible than bio-fuels or biodiesel is hilarious.

Neither have a great upside. But bacteria based or other methods of making bio-fuels at least have a realistic CHANCE of becoming viable. Far more than EV's.

Are you in fantasy land? Not only do we have to wait for battery technology to give us truly convenient and practical EV's, but what about our infrastructure? There are gas stations and support in place right now ready to instantly switch over to bio-fuels. Tell me this Mr. Data, how long would it realistically take for our electric grid to be ready for mass EV adoption? Also how long would it take before we have massive amounts of public charging stations and the support infrastructure to be in place? We don't just need "electric charging stations" we can drive to like ICE cars, we would need charging stations where we work, live, and anywhere in between.

quote:
Regardless, the Solar Power produces 60/3 or 20 times the miles... this is using basic solar power tech versus optomistic biofuels. Using existing proven data, its more like 40+ times.


Solar power? Do you know how much space enough panels would take to power a town? A city? Don't talk to me about acreage.

And I didn't even say biofuels were all that amazing in the first place. Just that they have more potential than EV tech. Biofuels mean NO massive support infrastructure required, and no range anxiety for automobiles or long charging times. It also means it can be viable for large trucks, airplanes, and ships. Something EV's will NEVER be, ever. When it comes down to it, gas tanks and batteries serve but one use; storing potential energy. It's not even an argument about which one does this better.

But whatever, keep on proving that you're an EV industry shill.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 8:55:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Trying to claim these are any more tangible than bio-fuels or biodiesel is hilarious.


Did I ever? The US Government has wasted 100s of Billion on Alt. Energy with little to show for it. Its spent around the same amount on Fossil Fuel improvements, Renewables, and BioFuels (with Corn Ethanol removed). I am pretty sure I provided a link to data in another post here.

quote:
But bacteria based or other methods of making bio-fuels at least have a realistic CHANCE of becoming viable. Far more than EV's.


Really? Any facts or data? I mean, keep in mind that EVs are currently on the market and primary EV technology such as battery costs, maximum storage capacity, and charge rate have been steadily improving. Researchers at Duke, the DOE, and elsewhere think EV technology could become viable in the 2015-2020 timeframe provided current trends continue. Algae has a long way to go. I've yet to see Algae farming that has a positive net energy in a real world application. But then, I'd be very glad to look at a document that says so.

quote:
Tell me this Mr. Data, how long would it realistically take for our electric grid to be ready for mass EV adoption


Our power grid managed to survive the introduction of the refrigerator, the air conditioner, the big screen TV, the near doubling of house size, the personal computer and a whole host of innovative products. Even if today we outlawed the buying of ICE and only sold EV, it would take 20 years or more to replace all ICE cars currently on the road. EV adoption will probably require 25-50 years for complete take-over. Keep in mind that we currently use alot of electricity moving around oil, gasoline, and refining the stuff. EV usage saves some forms of electricity. I've seen figures of around 2 kWh per gallon of gasoline. That's enough to send an EV around 6 miles.. Which ignore the roughly 5-6 kWh of NG refining a gallon usually takes. Put that in a power plant and you get another 6+ miles. Each gallon of gas saved provides 12+ miles of EV usage without increasing our home sourced electricity requirements.

quote:
we would need charging stations where we work, live, and anywhere in between.


Come now. How many roads really exist without power lines? You know a charger costs 2000 retail today right? And why even have new charging stations. PHEV solves that problem nicely. Supplement it with BioFuels and you have a 100% home grown solution that is possible using today's technology (at a high cost its true, but working models are out there).

quote:
Solar power? Do you know how much space enough panels would take to power a town? A city? Don't talk to me about acreage.


Wait. I thought we were talking about transportation. But I think you eloquently proving my point. Solar power is rightly viewed as not energy dense enough power generation. Yet Solar Power is between 50-1000 more energy dense in production than the very best biofuels that we can even conceive of making in the next 5 years. Basic Solar too. Not tracking concentrator cells. Nuclear Power would be even better.

quote:
It also means it can be viable for large trucks, airplanes, and ships. Something EV's will NEVER be, ever.


Well now. What a statement. See this is why I pick on you. Did you know, Trains are electric? Several "large" trucks are as well. But I think you mean an EV only application does not seem possible with today's technology or for the foreseeable future for a large tractor-trailer type tuck that covers hundreds of miles in one day. EV technology also runs into difficulty in air travel, where energy density of the fuel is even more critical then on ground travel. No proposed EV technology seems capable of provided the energy at a low enough weight to shuttle a 737 from Washington to Seattle.

Now if you had said that, I wouldn't be picking at the statement. Instead you said some random shouting.

quote:
When it comes down to it, gas tanks and batteries serve but one use; storing potential energy. It's not even an argument about which one does this better.


Really? I am pretty sure its about what platform provides the lowest cost per mile. I mean, there are more energy dense substances than gasoline.

You may not like EVs because you see them being pushed by Liberal/Democratic politicians. But to like BioFuels more smacks of contradiction. BioFuels have sucked up more government funding dollars than -any- major category. No BioFuel comes close to providing a cost improvement over gasoline... and they have been in research for 50+ years. Isn't that your whole argument against EV technology or am I missing something?


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 10:12:22 AM , Rating: 2
And another thing, stop using the word "investment". This isn't an investment because there won't be a payoff. We'll never get the money back.

Tesla was bailed out in 2008, then they got a handout, now we're paying their super-rich playboy clientele like Leonardo DeCaprio to buy them toys. What about that sounds like an "investment" to you?


RE: wonderful
By tayb on 2/10/2012 10:19:24 AM , Rating: 2
It's an investment in technology. I don't expect a cash return but I expect them to continue advancing EV tech. The payout will be when I can go purchase an electric car for $20-30k and never touch oil.

This is no different than most government funding.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 1:10:42 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Tesla was bailed out in 2008, then they got a handout,


Man, false false false.

Tesla recieved a Loan under the stricture of the DOE's ATVM Program

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Technology_V...

The cost to the federal government currently of the Tesla loan is approx. 30% of the value, but depending on whether Tesla repays the loan the value could be between 115% to -5% of the face value. And of course the funding is being provided regardless of the technology, but only in meeting established performance targets both engineering wise and financial wise. (See Fisker getting cut off due to not meeting targets)

Now Tesla may have recieved California funding that was then transfered to the Federal Government.

And the 7,500 subsidy is clearly wrong. That bill was written so inappropriately, golf carts were qualifying!


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 2:04:48 PM , Rating: 2
I'm really tired of people calling money that will NEVER get paid back "a loan".

And here you go again. Do you need a hobby or do you actually enjoy making up excuses to argue with me?


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 2:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm really tired of people calling money that will NEVER get paid back "a loan".


Really? You know the future? You can say for SURE that Federal Government will never get a cent back from its ATVM Loan to Tesla? Do you even know if Tesla has DRAWN from the Loan (Line of Credit type)?

quote:
Do you need a hobby or do you actually enjoy making up excuses to argue with me?


Reclaimer, almost on a post by post basis you make a completely fabricated claim without the deceny of even point to shady data or faulty logic.

For example what we are talking about right now

Tesla won the right to draw from a Government Secured Line of Credit in a compedition that was open to any automaker doing Business in the United States. Is still open, to any that want to undergoe the hurdles and requirements of such a right to draw from the line of credit.

GM got around 20 Billion dollars, with no possibility of repayment, and illegal intervention in its bankrupty proceedings.

Yet you want to use the same word to describe both events. Unbelievable.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 3:06:17 PM , Rating: 2
Tomatoe tomatto. You aren't hearing me. Maybe you'll hear it from someone else.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30digi....


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 3:15:33 PM , Rating: 2
Sure will. From your linked article.

quote:
The company is requesting $400 million in low-interest federal loans as part of the $25 billion loan package for the auto industry passed by Congress last year.


Loan.

quote:
Tesla is seeking the loans for development of a second-generation car, a five-passenger sedan that after tax credits would cost about $50,000 — less than half the Roadster’s price tag of $109,000 — and for a project to supply components for other manufacturers.


Loan.

quote:
Unfortunately for Tesla, batteries are based on chemistry and have nothing to do with Moore’s Law. Lawrence H. Dubois, chief technology officer at ATMI, a semiconductor industry supplier, said, “With batteries, you can’t just squeeze more energy into a smaller and smaller space the way you can squeeze more transistors.”


Interesting choice, A semiconducter maker commenting on batteries. Perhaps an independant scientist would have been a better choice no?

quote:
I wonder how Tesla’s course has been influenced by at least some of its investors being helplessly smitten by the world’s quietest dragster.


Opinion by Randall Stross a journalist.

What was I supposed to hear again? You notice that Randall Stross (who from the article does not seem particular fond of Tesla or Electric Cars) refered to Tesla's government help as loan consistently throughout the article. Maybe you should carefully reread that article youself.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 3:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
Throw the baby out with the bathwater eh?

You aren't my personal editor Keeir. A loan with no prospect of being payed back isn't a loan. End of discussion. That happened in 2008. Here we are 4 years later. How many units has Tesla sold? Have they paid the "loan" back?

If it's a loan then what are the terms? What are Tesla's obligations? How many payments have they made? Do they even HAVE payments? What happens when/if they default? And like Solyndra, what happens to the "loan" money if Tesla went under?

Point is, this is NOT a good use of Government funds.

quote:
Interesting choice, A semiconducter maker commenting on batteries. Perhaps an independant scientist would have been a better choice no?


What kind of game are you playing? I guess we should ignore the fact that he's 100% correct? If Moores Law applied to batteries, we wouldn't even be having this conversation!

quote:
What was I supposed to hear again?


Sigh. I don't know. Common sense? Truth? A better point of view?

I asked you yesterday and I'll ask again today. Can you just cut down on some of this obvious baiting of me that you're doing? It's just really obvious you think you can destroy my arguments by dragging me into semantics. Just talk to me like I'm a goddamn human being will you?


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 4:46:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sigh. I don't know. Common sense? Truth? A better point of view?


Alright then, lets take a look shall we?

quote:
Throw the baby out with the bathwater eh?


You linked to an opinion peice by a journalist that doesn't even talk about your main points. I am not sure there -is- a baby in that bathwater, unless your refering to the opinion of a journalist? Is there a reason I should trust this specific journalist?

Just because you AGREE with the opinion of the journalist, doesn't mean the journalist presented any facts, data, or analysis.

quote:
If it's a loan then what are the terms? What are Tesla's obligations? How many payments have they made? Do they even HAVE payments? What happens when/if they default? And like Solyndra, what happens to the "loan" money if Tesla went under?


https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=351

More details could be found out easier by filing a FOI request no doubt. Since each application and loan is a unique item.

quote:
Point is, this is NOT a good use of Government funds.


Stick to just saying that and we will agree. Quanitify or describe the use of Government funds in a ridicolous fashion and we wont.

quote:
What kind of game are you playing? I guess we should ignore the fact that he's 100% correct? If Moores Law applied to batteries, we wouldn't even be having this conversation!


I am not playing any games. You're drawing a conclusion about Battery technology based on a journalist question to an executive at a Semi-conducter company reported in an opinion peice. A question you are even unaware of...

I suggest reading

http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/han...

Maybe this would have been the correct type of study present in the article. You can even distort it somehwat "Researches at Duke University say Lithium Ion Batteries will never fall below 600 dollars per kWh. That means they will never be economically viable!"

quote:
It's just really obvious you think you can destroy my arguments by dragging me into semantics.


And this is where we disagree. The ends do not justify the means.

quote:
Just talk to me like I'm a goddamn human being will you?


Take a reasonable defensable position presenting rationale and data instead of shooting off your mouth and I will.

Really? Is that so hard? The best you can do is a fluffy opinion peice?


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 4:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
You're a shill. You exposed yourself in the Volt topics and here you are again defending EV tech at all costs, no matter what you have to say, no matter how cheap.

I'm not the only one who's noticed this. Come clean and tell us how you're involved with GM, battery tech, or EV's in some way. It's ALL you post about, defending EV's. Answer me or sod off! I see right through your false pretense of an objective facade.

quote:
Take a reasonable defensable position presenting rationale and data instead of shooting off your mouth and I will.


Fuck you. You are not the boss of me or my opinions. I've presented plenty of rationale. Some you claim you even agree with. Go troll someone else!


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 5:43:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're a shill.


Really, ad hominum?

quote:
It's ALL you post about,


http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=23932...
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=23699...
http://www.dailytech.com/Article.aspx?newsid=23868...

Should I go on? I don't work for GM or anyone connected even remotely alternate energy field.

quote:
You are not the boss of me or my opinions.


Gosh, where ever did I claim to be? But your not the boss of my opinions either.

quote:
I've presented plenty of rationale.


Not really. I find it difficult to find any rationale in your posting that you are able to defend besides ideological statements. Those are good as far as they go, but it might be refreshing to here some data every now and then. Heck, I even give you sources for you to look at that might support your stance.

quote:
Go troll someone else!


If all your interested in is having a gripe session where your most blantant lies and exaggerations are not questioned or challenged, maybe Talk Radio is more your style?


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: wonderful
By testerguy on 2/12/2012 6:54:10 AM , Rating: 2
Keeir,

You're wasting your time trying to educate Reclaimer77.

Once logically outwitted he will simply call you a 'shill' and present no logical opinions whatsoever.

It's the last resort of the dumb guy who thinks he's intelligent.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/11/2012 12:30:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Really? Is that so hard? The best you can do is a fluffy opinion peice?


Okay maybe you'll listen to Kenneth R. Rockwell. An electrical engineer, holding a B. S. E. E. degree, awarded with honors, from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. He currently holds two United States patents. Maybe you'll agree his opinion is informed enough?

Why electric cars are a crock
http://www.kenrockwell.com/business/electric-cars....

Basically Keeir, oh master of the Universe, the scale of economics prohibit electric cars from being mass adopted. The power requirements alone, as I have tried to tell you, are enormous.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/11/2012 1:47:56 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks Reclaimer, but thats still little more than opinion piece self-published by the author.

quote:
The big gotcha that most non-electronic engineers don't realize is that electric cars consume huge amounts of electric power. One electric car consumes as much power in typical operation as four homes!


Really?

The other day, I was using my electric dryer while watching TV on my 50" Plasma TV while using my microwave to heat up some pizza. Oh, my electric heater was probably running too. I mean it -is- winter out there.

http://www.energysavers.gov/your_home/appliances/i...

Lets see, thats somewhere between 4 kW - 10 kW. So 4 times that would be 16 kW - 40 kW. Last I checked the maximum charge rate for 220V US connection is ~6.6 kW. (BTW, neither the Leaf nor Volt use this charge rate. They both max at 3.3 kW). Seems a little well a deceptive then. Even if I had a Leaf, its entirely possible for me to use much more power than the maximum amount the Leaf would take... and I am just doing normal things. Not using a Hot Tube or hosting a party or any "special" thing.

This faulty statement leads to this

quote:
Here's the big problem: If we all got electric cars, we'd need four times as many new electric power plants, and four times as many transmission towers to get that power to our homes!


Wow, what a completely stupid statement.

The average light car in the US travels 12,000 miles in a year. While the average light car/light truck travels 15,000 miles. Lets take that 15,000 miles. To travel 15,000 miles, I will need 15,000/100 * 40 = 6000 kWh delivered to my home, which requires around 6700 kWh to leave the power plant. Lets just round that up to 7000 kWh. (As you can see, I am being pretty generous here, always rounding up and assuming worse condition than currently exist. The Model S for instance only takes 30 kWh to go 100 miles, not 40). Of course, I've not used 600 gallons of gas, which frees up 1200 kWh from the refinery and 3000 kWh of Natural Gas. Probably another 100 kWh from the transport and gas station pumping etc. So really its more like 4300 kWh of new energy, and 5000 kWh from the power plant.

Now the average US household uses ~11,000 kWh of power throughout the year (roughly 12,500 kWh from the plant).

GASP, 1 person moving to an electric car requires less than 50% of a household. Not 4 times! Peak power draw (even if correctly calculated) is not the same as average power draw. I'd think an electrical engineer, even just a Bachelors degree, would grasp that important difference. But I guess all the years reviewing camera's for a living take a little edge off the brain. Now, there are ~2.5 cars/light trucks per household here in the US. If we could replace all of them with electric cars today, residential power usage would roughly double. The problem with this is that residential power usage represents a small fraction of US power.

Lets put it this way, in 2011, the US consumed ~4 Trillion kWh. (eia.gov)

If we take 200 million electric cars at 5000 kWh, thats ~1 Trillion kWh.

Seems to me, thats less than 25% increase. A far cry from 400%. Of course, the Author starts with a faulty assumption, so it gets to a pretty poor answer.

quote:
When you ignore all the free subsidies handed out like cocaine to get people hooked, electric cars need to burn about four times as much to fuel at a power plant compared to burning it directly in your car.


Really? Well. Lets see. Something like the Cruze Eco, one of the best normal gasoline cars on the road gets around 35 miles to the gallon on the EPA test. This ignores the energy, oil, natural gas, etc that is used refining and transporting the gas. After you accont for that, the Cruze gets around 28 Miles per gallon.

Lets take that same "Gallon" and use it as Fuel Oil in a plant. Refining/transport takes us from 1 gallon to .85 gallon. Turning it into electricity yields around 20 kWh. Transporting it to a home yields around 18 kWh. On 18 kWh, the Leaf travels around 50 miles.

Gosh, my my my. Seems like the electric car requires you to burn 40% fuel at the power plant than in your engine.

Sorry Reclaimer, that author is not very trustworthy, does not present any real numbers or use readily available data. He comes off as just a hater.

Missed in his analysis also is this
quote:
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_m...

Those 200 million electric cars? They would ensure the US needs to import 0 oil to serve Air Transport, Trucking, etc. Our own supplies would extend, giving more time to solve the tougher problems with the above mentioned activities.

Overall, not really impressed Reclaimer. Non-peer reviewed. Not even reviewed by an editor, let alone a fact-checker. No real numbers or analysis of the real situation and stupid assumptions.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/11/12, Rating: 0
RE: wonderful
By Masospaghetti on 2/12/2012 10:08:41 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Okay the joke stops here. When you hold two patents and an electrical engineering degree, you can counter him with authority.

And yet, this electrical engineer's conclusions are all wrong (which you can't refute)
quote:
Nobody can have an opinion, everything must be "peer reviewed"

An opinion is one thing, but spouting opinions based on bad facts and faulty logic and selling this as truth is another.
quote:
Also you know jack shit about electricity. A level 3 EV charger is 440v and draws 400 amps!

Accounting for a 10% charging loss, that would charge a 158 kWH battery pack (440V*400A*0.9=158,000 watts) in one hour. That would charge a Leaf's battery pack (24 kWH) in 9 minutes. In other words, this is an unrealistic case that has no relevance. The important fact is that EVs go a lot farther than gasoline vehicles on the same amount of ENERGY.
quote:
According to EVcharger.com, you'll need one of these chargers for each EV you own. Do you know anything about electricity? That's several times more than your entire HOUSE would draw from the grid if you left everything on!

You are either being intentionally ignorant or you have no clue how electricity works. 120v, 20A chargers are sufficient to charge a car overnight and this would suffice for many users. You act like these 175,000 watt chargers would be operating continuously. Very few people would need to charge their cars in 9 minutes.
quote:
The fact that you focus purely on volts and watts while ignoring amps proves me to you know NOTHING of the situation at hand.

You do realize that volts * amps = watts? Therefore, considering watts (the meaningful measure of energy consumption) also considers amperage.
quote:
The guy spelled it out for you and you don't even want to believe it. I'm shocked at how you can, through sheer force of will, deny everything that doesn't agree with your opinions.

Ridiculously hypocritical. Do you even listen to yourself?
quote:
Time to shut up, frankly.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/12/2012 10:36:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Very few people would need to charge their cars in 9 minutes.


BS. For EV's to become practical charging times MUST be on par, or close, to ICE refueling times. This is something your crowd refuses to acknowledge. It's called REALITY, please come back to it.

You've heard people say it a million times "I will buy an EV when I can charge it as fast as filling up my car".

People understand "best case" scenarios don't fly. They need a car they can get in and drive anywhere. They can't rely on best case "overnight" charging times to get them through the day. A lot of people don't even have the option to use an overnight charger!

Overnight charging? Well that's real practical because, you know, everyone parks their cars in a garage. Nobody parks cars on the street, or in parking garages, etc etc.

Again, for EV's to be a real solution we need fast chargers and they need to be EVERYWHERE. On every street, every parking lot. Everywhere. The power draw because of this would be enormous and you're just fooling yourself to think otherwise. The infrastructure required, massive. Absolutely massive!

quote:
The important fact is that EVs go a lot farther than gasoline vehicles on the same amount of ENERGY.


Which is meaningless because you can't even come close to going as far on electricity as you can on gasoline. EV's can't store as much potential energy as gasoline powered vehicles do. End of discussion.

quote:
You do realize that volts * amps = watts? Therefore, considering watts (the meaningful measure of energy consumption) also considers amperage.


I think it's important to spell out how significant. something running at 440V and 400amps draws from the grid. Most people don't know that, including Keeir, obviously. That's several magnitudes more electricity than your entire house uses. And service lines and other equipment large enough for that kind of amperage would have to be run to every house, street, parking garage, etc etc. A massive undertaking!


RE: wonderful
By corduroygt on 2/12/2012 11:10:57 AM , Rating: 2
I don't see why you'd need 440W/400A chargers EVERYWHERE. We don't have gas pumps in our homes and garages and street parking spots yet we do fine. Making these high power chargers as commonplace as gas stations would be sufficient, which is still a big undertaking of course.

Plus, there are already electric cars that can go 200-300 miles on a charge, but they cost a lot, so that's the second part of the EV problem.

EV's are problematic but nowhere near as problematic as you make them out to be.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/12/2012 2:13:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We don't have gas pumps in our homes and garages and street parking spots yet we do fine.


Because cars go 300+ miles a tank, under any and all conditions, and can be refueled in minutes maybe?

Honestly you guys are getting ridiculous now. The only way EV's become a reality without some kind of quantum leap in battery technology is if we have chargers damned near everywhere. That's REALITY. Stop arguing with me about reality and face it.


RE: wonderful
By corduroygt on 2/12/2012 2:52:55 PM , Rating: 2
There are electric cars that can go 300 miles per tank like the Tesla Model S. With a 18kVA charge station similar to a gas station, it could be refueled in 10 minutes or less. The only problem is the cost of the batteries and the infrastructure for charging stations.

You don't need 18kVA chargers EVERYWHERE like you argued, that's utter BS.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/12/12, Rating: 0
RE: wonderful
By corduroygt on 2/12/2012 11:06:09 PM , Rating: 2
Lots of nuclear reactors...


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 4:06:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
with 400+ million cars on the road would realistically require


Wow. What year are we talking about? Last I checked there were less than 200 million registered US drivers and the population was growing at roughly 2% a year. It will be at least 30 years in the future when we hit 400 million cars. -30- years. There are only ~300 million -people- in the US currently. Gosh, why can't you do even SIMPLE fact checking.

quote:
But the simple fact is you've failed to prove our grid can handle EV's, and that they don't represent a massive power drain and infrastructure problem.


You've failed to show that they are!

Go and check my math. Oh wait, I forget, you're into factless rhetoric.

If 100% of all passenger car and light truck travel was electric, the US would need to produce only 25% more power than last year to cover every single mile. Every Single Mile.

Somehow, I think the US power grid can handle it spread out over 15-30 years. It would be easier than the introduction of air conditioning.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 12:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
Registered drivers does not = cars on the road. America has more vehicles than people. That's a fact, stop baiting me with your condescension. I meant to type 300+ not 400 but we can't edit. Either way, fact remains we have a massive number of automobile and truck usage here.

quote:
If 100% of all passenger car and light truck travel was electric, the US would need to produce only 25% more power than last year to cover every single mile


That's impossible. More made up "math" from you. Don't be a hypocrite now, instead of your "math" how about a peer reviewed study showing me that? Preferably one that wasn't influenced by someone who stands to make a fortune from EV mass adoption.

Like all wackos who support EV's, your vision of the future is powered by optimism and fairy tales.

Here's a hardcore number for you. Sales of the Volt and Leaf suck, horribly. And will ALWAYS compared to ICE vehicles. You can try and beat me, but you can't beat EVERYONE Keeir.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 2:18:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Registered drivers does not = cars on the road. America has more vehicles than people.


I am not really sure how one person can drive more than one car at a time. This is why I talk about drivers, not cars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in...

DO A GOOGLE SEARCH. Even 300 million is stupid.

Yearly car sales are around 15 million. Even if 100% of cars sold were EV, it would take 20+ years to get to 300+ or 26+ to get to 400.

quote:
That's impossible.


Phew. I am so glad I don't have to do math or use logic. Reclaimer says its "impossible". Clearly it must be so! Someone thinks its impossible!

quote:
Preferably one that wasn't influenced by someone who stands to make a fortune from EV mass adoption.


Is the math too hard from you?

Let me seperate it out line by line.

A typical US driver drives 15,000 miles or less.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/bar8.htm

A typical EV/PHEV gets 100 miles per 40 kWh
Volt - 100 miles per 36 kWh
Leaf - 100 miles per 34 kWh

Therefore, the typical driver will require (remember the EPA tests consumption from the wall)
13,476 miles / 100 miles * 40 kWh = 5390.4 kWh

Now, the US power grid efficiency is roughly 93% in Transmission and Distribution.

Link was Spam

And there are roughly 200 million registered drivers in the United States currently
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p4.htm

Thus, at the power plant, the US will required

5390.4 kWh * 1/.93 * 200,000,000 = 1,159,139,000,000 kWh

Yearly in the US, we produce 4,000,000,000,000 kWh

But lets face it, a significant part of that is used in running our gasoline refineries and distribution system.

The Argonne National Lab estimates around 6 kWh of Electricity/Natural Gas is used
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/TA/635.PDF

At worst this is ~3 kWh of electricity at a power plant that is freed up per gallon of gasoline. Its likely significantly greater! More like 4 or even 5. But whatever, 3 kWh is -very- conservative.

In 2009, the average economy of cars was 22 MPG at -best-
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transport...

So lets see, thats
13,476 miles / 22 Miles * 1 gallon * 200,000,000 * 3 kWh = 367,527,000,000 kWh

In conclusion, if the US produced ~800,000,000,000 kWh more, then they could have covered every single mile.

8/40 = 0.2 --> 20%. Lets throw another 5% on because after all, power producers are not able to produce power exactly to consumption. An additional 25% seems reasonable no?

So please Reclaimer, find a problem in my very simple math. Its just multiplication and division.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 2:35:24 PM , Rating: 1
I love how you can make such a huge assumption based on the typical driver. I guess we just don't count the millions of people who aren't "typical". Nope they don't count.

quote:
In conclusion, if the US produced ~800,000,000,000 kWh more


I love how you don't think that's massive.

quote:
Reclaimer says its "impossible". Clearly it must be so!


Finally you get it. You know if you just repeated this to yourself before posting, we would all be saved more time and trouble.

quote:
So please Reclaimer, find a problem in my very simple math.


Your math is fine. The problem is it comes from a false starting premise. When you start an equation wrong, how does it end? Wrong.

It's also false because you assume EV's and the power delivery systems to EV's are 100% efficient. Which they are not.

You can just stop posting back to me anytime. You're full of bullshit, I'm never going to drink your goddamn EV Kool-Aid. I'll fight you on this until I die. And furthermore, so are the majority of car buyers. And that's what's REALLY stuck in your craw by all your rantings about how stupid Americans are for wanting to "kill GM" by not buying a Volt.


RE: wonderful
By Masospaghetti on 2/13/2012 3:15:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I guess we just don't count the millions of people who aren't "typical". Nope they don't count.

Typical (average) driver averages out those who drive less and those who drive more.
quote:
I love how you don't think that's massive.

It represents a 25% increase (like he said), easily handled over multiple decades, not a 400% increase like you where saying. This is also assuming all cars are EVs...which wouldn't happen.
quote:
Your math is fine. The problem is it comes from a false starting premise. When you start an equation wrong, how does it end? Wrong.

How did he start his equation wrong?
quote:
It's also false because you assume EV's and the power delivery systems to EV's are 100% efficient.

EPA calculated energy consumption from the wall, so this considers charging losses.
quote:
You're full of bullshit,

It's funny to hear that from you, as someone who obviously doesn't understand basic physics or electronics.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 3:47:33 PM , Rating: 2
The 400% increase only happens when the charger is actually in operation. I thought that was obvious and that we weren't talking about a permanent 400+% usage on electricity all the time.

quote:
This is also assuming all cars are EVs...which wouldn't happen.


That's the smartest thing you've ever said. Keeir is dedicating thousands of words to make something a reality that's an impossibility. Not only will all cars never be EV, but most cars won't be EV. I'll even go so far as to say a significant number of cars will never be EV's in a country this large with so many cars on the road.

The rest of your post is the typical say anything pro-Liberal crap that comes from you. Keeir is perfectly capable of shoveling garbage my way without you cheerleading for him, short stack.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 4:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The 400% increase only happens when the charger is actually in operation. I thought that was obvious and that we weren't talking about a permanent 400+% usage on electricity all the time.


So your contention then is that all electric cars would be recharged within the same ~3 minutes every day? Cross country? I am confused. Pretty sure gas stations couldn't service all the cars in the US if they all showed up in the same 3 minues cross country. So strange.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 4:52:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am confused.


Finally you said something I agree with. You certainly are my friend.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 4:57:39 PM , Rating: 2
Is that what you've fallen to? Taking things out of context in a petty attempt to somehow score character points? I guess since you made no attempt to answer, you are conceding that my math and assumptions were correct.

What's you next item about why EVs are bad since we both agree the US can make the required amount of electricity?


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 5:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Taking things out of context


Something you're the KING of doing.

quote:
I guess since you made no attempt to answer


Every time I do you move the goalposts! I forced you to acknowledge that something running 440V@400Amps is a pure power hog! And then you counter with your typical deflection of "well we don't NEED to use those chargers, we'll just use slow ones." Every time I make a point, you come up with a new angle as if the point was never made. Screw this.

Come on man. There's just no way of winning when you're being this way. Nor do I care to anymore.

quote:
What's you next item about why EVs are bad since we both agree the US can make the required amount of electricity?


Are you 12? I never said "Ev's are bad".

And of course we "can" make the power required! I never said we couldn't. But at what cost and is it worth it? You obviously think it is. But I never will.

You're a really smart guy and a damned good debater. It's just too bad you don't understand how things work. You need practical knowledge badly, and a little less theory.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 5:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And of course we "can" make the power required! I never said we couldn't.


Didn't you say this

quote:
The whole point is that EV's represent an unsustainable level of power consumption for this country.


Btw, the roughly
13,450 Miles/Driver * 200,000,000 Drivers/US * 1 gallon/ 22 Miles * 34 kWh/ 1 gallon--> 4,157,272,727,272 kWh per year of gasoline is much more sustainable. (Remember it only takes ~1,100,000,000,000 kWh of electricity to do the same EV miles, or 3,300,000,000,00 kWh of Coal or 2,200,000,000,000 kWh of NG or ~2,500,000,000,000 kWh of Oil)

So because its not sustainable to use electricity, you want to use somewhere between 1.5-3x the energy to accomplish the same task?!? And that's somehow sustainable?


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 6:30:03 PM , Rating: 2
Again, you're totally right. I'm nodding my head in agreement over here. Big time. Yeppers.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 5:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
I think this whole thing came about when the author I linked said "EV's use 4 times the power of an entire house". You interpreted this as if he was literally saying we would need 400% more power generation 24/7. I'm simply clarifying that's only the case when the EV is being charged. Not sure why you're focusing on this "3 minute" margin when it's irrelevant WHEN the car is being charged. Again, more pointless baiting by you. Are you sure your degree wasn't in Advanced Bickering?

The whole point is that EV's represent an unsustainable level of power consumption for this country. If we had something like Frances level of nuclear power generation, I wouldn't be able to make this claim. But we don't. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. If ever. When was the last nuclear reactor built in this country? Something like 1977? With approval for ONE upcoming reactor, the first approval in decades and most likely the last for decades. Way too little too late considering how long it takes to get one of these up and running.

You fought the good fight, but in the end, you can't argue against reality. EV's are a boondoggle and cannot satisfy the transportation requirements of the people. That is a statement of fact.

EV's don't run on electricity, they run on subsidies. And cars that run on subsidies don't sell. Ask yourself why roughly 60% of all EV's sold in the U.S were from California. Spoiler alert: California pays people to buy them. But even with the generous national level subsidies, the sales on EV's are crap.

You want to just wash all this away by saying "well at some point in the future, this will change". All your math, "facts", and stubborn trolling come down to child-like dreams and speculation.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 5:30:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
think this whole thing came about when the author I linked said "EV's use 4 times the power of an entire house". You interpreted this as if he was literally saying we would need 400% more power generation 24/7. I'm simply clarifying that's only the case when the EV is being charged. Not sure why you're focusing on this "3 minute" margin when it's irrelevant WHEN the car is being charged. Again, more pointless baiting by you. Are you sure your degree wasn't in Advanced Bickering?


Wait wait wait. You're the one who linked to an article to support your assertion the US would need "massive" amounts of new power generation.

Here's the link if you have forget it

http://www.kenrockwell.com/business/electric-cars....

quote:
Here's the big problem: If we all got electric cars, we'd need four times as many new electric power plants, and four times as many transmission towers to get that power to our homes!


Did you not read the article?

quote:
The whole point is that EV's represent an unsustainable level of power consumption for this country.


PROVE IT!

You have nothing but your assertion. You apparently don't even agree with your linked "sources."

quote:
EV's are a boondoggle and cannot satisfy the transportation requirements of the people. That is a statement of fact.


Then you should have no trouble using math to explain how it's impossible.

quote:
With approval for ONE upcoming reactor, the first approval in decades and most likely the last for decades.


So out of touch.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf41.html

But really how about Natural Gas? Why does Nuclear need to be the only answer?

quote:
You want to just wash all this away by saying "well at some point in the future, this will change".


Nope. I say "using existing trends in per kWh pricing of batteries existing for decades, EVs and PHEVs will soon be affordable".


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 5:50:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You're the one who linked to an article to support your assertion the US would need "massive" amounts of new power generation.


Of course! What world do you live in where adding millions of EV's somehow don't represent an increase in power demands? Wtf! You're driving me nuts!

quote:
But really how about Natural Gas? Why does Nuclear need to be the only answer?


You don't want to drill for oil but you'll accept natural gas being used to generate electricity for your precious EV's....

Okay whatever.

quote:
Following a 30-year period in which few new reactors were built, it is expected that 4-6 new units may come on line by 2020, the first of those resulting from 16 licence applications made since mid-2007 to build 24 new nuclear reactors.


How does this prove me wrong? "The first of those" is the ONE that's been approved so far for construction. This doesn't say more have been approved. This said they've been applied for. We've essentially had virtually NO increase in nuclear power generation in 30 years, this even confirms what I said.

Also good god man, your sources. You act as if the EPA and World Nuclear Association are somehow unbiased independent sources. That's like me linking something from ExxonMobile.com to make a point on oil numbers, you wouldn't accept that. Stop assume I'll do the same.

quote:
"using existing trends in per kWh pricing of batteries existing for decades, EVs and PHEVs will soon be affordable".


When that day happens, you'll be right. Until then, I am.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 6:05:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of course! What world do you live in where adding millions of EV's somehow don't represent an increase in power demands? Wtf! You're driving me nuts!


So we've gone from 400% (your linked source) to massive to unsustainable to simply an increase.

Why yes, I said my math indicates 20-25% increase on currently levels. Definitely an increase.

quote:
You don't want to drill for oil but you'll accept natural gas being used to generate electricity for your precious EV's.... Okay whatever.


When have I been ever against drilling for oil? For all purposes, lets drill for oil, refine the gasoline, and sell it to Europe, to India, to China. But why should we continue to burn it for our own transportation?

quote:
That's like me linking something from ExxonMobile.com to make a point on oil numbers, you wouldn't accept that.


Really? I don't see you even make the attempt.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 6:20:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But why should we continue to burn it for our own transportation?


Because there's nothing better! And why shouldn't we? My god man....

I give up. I just give up. Okay you win. You win. This just isn't worth the frustration.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 6:29:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Because there's nothing better!


Really?

The best gasoline car, the Toyota Prius is an electric assist car. It gets around 50 miles per gallon. Or 1.47 miles per kWh of purchased energy and gasoline costs ~0.11 dollars per kWh.

The Cruse Eco, the best normal ICE, gets around 35 miles per gallon. Or 1.16 miles per kWh.

The "best" electric car, the Nissan Leaf gets around 100 miles per 34 kWh or 2.94 miles per kWh of purchased energy and electricity costs ~0.11 dollars per kWh.

Same unit cost, 2 times the miles. Erumm... Hard to say the gasoline is a better option.

Gasoline has 1 and only 1 significant advantage. It allows for fast "recharge"/"refill". Pretty much every other measurable way, gasoline is inferior. If you can think of some other ways, I'd be glad to hear them.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 6:34:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Pretty much every other measurable way, gasoline is inferior.


Other than lighting you on fire? Can't think of a one.


RE: wonderful
By corduroygt on 2/13/2012 11:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
More advantages for gasoline besides quick fillups:

1. Higher energy density
2. Because of 1, only viable energy storage for flying craft.
3. Only viable fuel for fast vehicles (jet engines)
4. Cheap and efficient energy storage method(gas tank)
5. Contrary to what you see in movies, storing lots of energy in the form of gasoline is pretty safe, safer than a battery.

So no, there are lots of advantages of using gasoline. Electric energy is only better when you don't have to store it, since there is no good way to do so. So if we redid all the roads and added power rails to them like we do on railroads, it's be efficient. As long as you have to rely on chemical batteries, EV is a no-go.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/14/12, Rating: 0
RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/15/2012 3:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As long as you have to rely on chemical batteries, EV is a no-go.
quote:
1. Higher energy density


Same as quick fill up. I mislabeled it. Higher energy density is what allows the quick fill-up.

quote:
2. Because of 1, only viable energy storage for flying craft.

quote:
3. Only viable fuel for fast vehicles (jet engines)
<

I'll grant that I forgot to limit to personal passenger cars... but I thought that was clear

quote:
5. Contrary to what you see in movies, storing lots of energy in the form of gasoline is pretty safe, safer than a battery.


Okay wait. A car using a battery is just as safe as a car with a battery and a gas tank. Unless you can prove me wrong? Gasoline is highly volitale, a poison, and the fumes are explosive. Its tough to see how removing it from a car somehow makes the car less safe.

quote:
As long as you have to rely on chemical batteries, EV is a no-go.


Sigh. Such a statement. I'll fix it for you

"As long as you have to rely on today's chemical batteries at today's prices, EV is a no-go"

Battery technology has more than 100 years of proven advancements and reductions in cost. I'd be careful predicting the technological future.


RE: wonderful
By Masospaghetti on 2/13/2012 4:51:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The rest of your post is the typical say anything pro-Liberal

How does have anything with being liberal or conservative? It's about being reasonable and logical, not clinging onto ideals that have no bearing on reality. Which is why you again are trying to attack my credibility, without actually refuting anything I said. The 400% number you keep using has been shown wrong many times already and you keep clinging to it.
quote:
Keeir is perfectly capable of shoveling garbage my way without you cheerleading for him

You're right...he's obviously capable of completely serving you without my help. I'm just tired of seeing you post on subjects in which you obviously have no clue.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 5:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's about being reasonable and logical, not clinging onto ideals that have no bearing on reality.


Exactly! And there's no reality where EV's are are better solution than ICE. End of discussion.

quote:
The 400% number you keep using has been shown wrong many times already and you keep clinging to it.


First off, it's not wrong because the only way to prove it wrong would be if we DID have an entire nation full of EV's. And we had the real numbers. So no, guesswork and averages are not reality.

Secondly, focusing on the 400% is just a nice way to deflect the main point, which is that EV's represent SOME level of unsustainable and enormous power requirements. It doesn't have to be 400%, even "only" 200% is too much.

You and Keeir's insistence this isn't the case only reflects the general enviro-wacko leftist attitude that we need these things, and goddammit, we'll just figure out the details later. Just do it now, because we said so.

quote:
I'm just tired of seeing you post on subjects in which you obviously have no clue.


If being clueless puts me at odds with two idiots such as yourselves, I'll gladly accept that. Seriously, you guys are beyond gone.

There's NO rational case for EV's. NONE. The sooner you get this, the better off we'll be.


RE: wonderful
By Masospaghetti on 2/14/2012 9:34:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
First off, it's not wrong because the only way to prove it wrong would be if we DID have an entire nation full of EV's.

No. It was already proved it wrong using basic math and fact checking, which you still don't get.
quote:
Secondly, focusing on the 400% is just a nice way to deflect the main point, which is that EV's represent SOME level of unsustainable and enormous power requirements.

What is this "enormous" power requirement, exactly? You don't even know for yourself! How could you be SO certain EVs are unsustainable, when you don't even know how much energy they will consume?
quote:
You and Keeir's insistence this isn't the case only reflects the general enviro-wacko leftist attitude

Again, this has nothing to do with the right or left. It's about you completely ignoring facts thrown in your face and your insistence to spread misinformation, despite having no evidence to support your claims.
quote:
There's NO rational case for EV's. NONE.

Except the point made multiple times already, that EV's are much, much more energy efficient than gasoline powered vehicles. But from someone that doesn't understand the difference between a watt and an ampere, I'm not surprised.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 4:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
So let me be clear.

You can find no fault with my math. None.

You can not state a problem with my assumptions, besides that I used the "average" driving distance of registered US drivers. Lets face it, that's not valid.

Yet you won't accept the outcome... based on blind faith apparently.

quote:
I'll fight you on this until I die. And furthermore, so are the majority of car buyers.


I highly doubt this. If the Volt was a 30,000 dollar car, I think many people would be more than happy.

http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/bitstream/han...

The Volt is based on a pack price per kWh of ~1,000 per kWh. That makes the battery essentially 16,000 dollars of cost. In 10 years, the Volt would be a 30,000 dollar car just based on -battery- reduction costs, not counting any NEW inventions or reduction in other costs.

Again, people will stop fighting as soon as it's clear to them that EVs and PHEVs will cost them less daily. Probably even you.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 5:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If the Volt was a 30,000 dollar car, I think many people would be more than happy.


Well I guess we should have made the EV subsidy $15,000. Then you would have been proved correct.

Seriously, do you even have a clue on any level about how wrong you are on this?

quote:
In 10 years, the Volt would be a 30,000 dollar car


In 10 years there won't BE a Chevy Volt. We'll be lucky if there's even a Chevy if they insist on wasting massive capital on a loss leader.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/12/2012 1:53:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Overnight charging? Well that's real practical because, you know, everyone parks their cars in a garage. Nobody parks cars on the street, or in parking garages, etc etc.


This argument boils down I think to the following statement which covers the entire post I think.

"Because EVs currently do not work for everyone and everything without a change in behavior, they are impossible and stupid"

Yet, outside of the most fanatic EV priests, very few EV proponents suggest that tomorrow no more Gasoline Cars should be sold or used. EVs and PHEVs (outside of cost) could be used by a significant fraction of the US. Think like 25-50%. With some relatively small investments, they could work for another 10-25%. Consider the improvement of the Leaf in Cost and Size versus the EV-1. That happened in a short 15 years. Even if we outlaw the sale of Gasoline cars tomorrow, it will be more than 15 years till the last cars are getting replaced by electrics.

Personally, I think the best market solution is comprised of many different solutions.

EV, PHEV, Hybrid ICE, ICE

Maybe like 25%, 50%, 15%, 10%

Most people's behaviors wouldn't need to change, yet large amounts of oil would no longer be used...


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/12/2012 7:38:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Most people's behaviors wouldn't need to change, yet large amounts of oil would no longer be used...


Pretty much sums up your arguments there. "I hate oil, so EV's must be used"


RE: wonderful
By corduroygt on 2/12/2012 11:08:07 PM , Rating: 2
Agree with you there, especially the 50% PHEV ratio coming from a blatant Chevy Volt supporter. Sorry, we will all drive electric cars when it's cheaper to do so, and it's a long way until that happens, but still possible.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 5:51:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Agree with you there, especially the 50% PHEV ratio coming from a blatant Chevy Volt supporter.


LMAO I know. 50%!? This guy is on crack.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 3:55:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hate oil, so EV's must be used


Well. Lets look at oil then for a bit.

http://www.ioga.com/Special/crudeoil_Hist.htm

In the 1998-2001 time frame, Oil was around 20 dollars per barrel

Today the 2008-2011 time frame, Oil is around 75 dolalrs per barrel.

This is US produced Crude.

Now, in just a decade, the price of oil has risen by 375%. The price of oil, as the primary ingredient is our Air, Sea, and Land fuels, plays a role in the price of everything. It has shown itself to be highly variable and on an upwards trajectory.

At the same time, US imports of oil has risen to fairly significant levels. One needs look now further to the economies of Canada and Russia to see how the economies of countries able to export Oil, NG, etc grow... one would therefore think that the required importation of Oil is a significant drag on the US economy as a whole.

I don't think it's a stretch to see how having personal transportation based on a steadier commodity sourced more domestically is good

http://www.statista.com/statistics/201714/growth-i...

Now, whatever method eventually happens, it is definitely important that it is economically better than oil/gasoline today.

PHEVs are nearly there. While the Volt is a very expensive piece of machine (for example), reducing its cost by a factor of 33% would make everyone very happy! It would then be by far the cheapest car on the market to own and operate for 150,000 miles. Pure EVs like the Leaf are also nearly there. A Leaf that cost ~20k, would be a very possible second or third car for families for example, and be extremely economical.

Almost a side benefit would be the drastic reduction in localized pollution. But hey, I am sure everyone loves breathing in fumes!

But don't mistake, at no point do I think gasoline cars should be outlawed. It will be difficult to replace gasoline cars in certain areas with poor electric service or in general wide open spaces that absolutely require 400+ mile ranges and 100+ daily drives.

(In case your curious the ATVM loan program was open to all technologies. Ford received significant funds to upgrade their ICE cars lines for example.)


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 12:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Almost a side benefit would be the drastic reduction in localized pollution. But hey, I am sure everyone loves breathing in fumes!


More proof that you're arguing from an extremist environmentalist position.

I had the feeling that's why you were so against any potential upside biofuels might have. Because you're just against burning something for fuel.

Get a clue. EV's just shift pollution from your tailpipe to somewhere else. There are NO true "clean" alternatives.

quote:
But don't mistake, at no point do I think gasoline cars should be outlawed.


God are you living in a cave? They won't HAVE to be "outlawed". The Government just has to pass more and more regulations like stricter CAFE and keep the price of gasoline rising. That will take care of ICE cars all on it's own without forcibly outlawing them. This is how the Government works! Hello?

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.”


Steven Chu
Energy Secretary


My god, when the "energy secretary" of the United States outlines the clear and obvious goal of making gas prohibitively expensive for Americans, and then tells them to just buy costly more efficient cars like the Volt, how can you support that as a policy?

Simply telling Americans there is nothing to do but sell your car and buy an expensive new one, while cutting off domestic supply and purposefully making gasoline more expensive is a dangerous and reckless policy amidst a struggling economic recovery.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 2:42:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I had the feeling that's why you were so against any potential upside biofuels might have. Because you're just against burning something for fuel.


No... Biofuels have a problem.

It will take an every increasing section of our country to produce them... at prices far above electricity or gasoline. Even Algae Fuel, by far the most energy dense biofuel creation, would take a giant section of ground.

(3000 gallons per acre per year. 200,000,000 * 13,500 / 30 MPG= 90,000,000,000 gallons --> 30,000,000 acres --> 46,875 square miles.)

That's the size of Iowa! And its pretty optimistic since the best research right now sits at 1/2 that much (1,500 gallons per acre per year.)

quote:
Get a clue. EV's just shift pollution from your tailpipe to somewhere else. There are NO true "clean" alternatives.


Yep. EVs wouldn't completely get rid of pollution. Though using Hydro, Nuclear, Wind, Solar, and Natural Gas would all be better than BioFuels for total pollution and smash even the very best gasoline cars.

quote:
My god, when the "energy secretary" of the United States outlines the clear and obvious goal of making gas prohibitively expensive for Americans, and then tells them to just buy costly more efficient cars like the Volt, how can you support that as a policy?


I don't. Nor do I support opposing PHEVs as a political exercise.

I also don't support keeping gas prices artificially low. Gas taxes barely keep up with road requirements as it is... they probably could be doubled just to cover bridge/infrastructure improvements. Lets not forget the very -real- pollution that gets pumped directly into people's lungs. Like NOx, particle, etc.

But your in denial if you feel like it will be the US government that will inflate gasoline.

Look at India. Look at China. Look at the former USSR. Look at Eastern Europe. Look at South America. Look at Africa.

All of these places want to live like the US or Europe. To get there, they will need oil, lots of it. Regardless of the supply curve, a shifting demand curve will affect prices. Significantly.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 3:31:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
But your in denial if you feel like it will be the US government that will inflate gasoline.


I think you need to look up what the word "denial" is. Because you are living in it.

The U.S government has been doing nothing BUT cause gas prices to rise for years now. By blocking our own exploitation of natural resources, they've put as at the mercy of the volatile world oil market.

quote:
Gas taxes barely keep up with road requirements as it is...


Are you a flaming liberal? Gas taxes barely "keep up" because federal and state governments horribly mismanage the money or outright rob from it. Hell my own state constantly robs from the highway and roads fund for any number of stupid things. Sure we have potholes and half done roadway projects all over the place, but thank GOD they got the new civic arts center built!! That's WAY more important than using road taxes for, you know, roads.

I'm beginning to think you ARE a Liberal actually. Your solution is to just blindly increase taxes? As if this country actually requires billion of dollars in gas taxes to keep the roads and bridges going? EVERY YEAR??

quote:
All of these places want to live like the US


Why would they want to live like us? We're terrible. We don't even have EV's everywhere and our skies are full of poisonous fumes. We also need higher gas taxes, all these people driving everywhere freely, it's disgusting! America? Bah! Just a bunch of self serving selfish Imperialistic assholes who make the world crap to live in for the rest of us.

The way you're talking, oil is some kind of commodity that allows people to enjoy a higher standard of living. What kind of neo-con nonsense is that!!?? Why would ANYONE want to live like we do in America? Driving around in affordable automobiles that come in sizes bigger than "tiny", powered by terrible gas guzzling engines, gassing up at the pump for a third of what you pay in other countries. AAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! I break out in hives and get angry just thinking about it. Those Americans are CRAZY! They symbolize everything wrong that a society could possibly be.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 5:27:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One needs look now further to the economies of Canada and Russia to see how the economies of countries able to export Oil, NG, etc grow... one would therefore think that the required importation of Oil is a significant drag on the US economy as a whole.


This is why you're an activist. You draw the correct conclusion, then fail in the outcome. The obvious response to this is, we should be consuming and even exporting our OWN oil. Especially now in a recession. We're sitting on hundreds of billions of dollars worth of coil and oil, for what? Activism.

You claim you aren't for blocking pipeline projects and drilling, yet every single time you have an opportunity to prove that, you dismiss that as a possible outcome.

Instead somehow you arrive at the conclusion that EV's are the way to go, because electricity is the more stable commodity. Of course it won't stay "stable" if millions of EV's appear on the roads. The price for electricity will then ALSO skyrocket. Supply and demand. It's already going up now due to simple market forces unrelated to EV's.

This proves you're an activist who sets aside common sense for his ideology.

I already know what you're going to counter with. I've been down this road before. You're going to link some study that "proves" we only have enough oil to last around 10 years anyway, so why bother. Go ahead, I know you want to.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 5:36:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is why you're an activist. You draw the correct conclusion, then fail in the outcome. The obvious response to this is, we should be consuming and even exporting our OWN oil. Especially now in a recession.


Take a gander.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Oil_Reserves.png

US does not have significant oil reserves. Sorry Reclaimer, its a good talking point, but ultimately its a stop gap measure. I am not sure why the CIA would be making this up. At no point have I EVER suggested we should stop drilling for oil. Or using oil. Just using oil to run a ICE in personal transportation. That's a great deal different eh?

quote:
Instead somehow you arrive at the conclusion that EV's are the way to go, because electricity is the more stable commodity. Of course it won't stay "stable" if millions of EV's appear on the roads. The price for electricity will then ALSO skyrocket. Supply and demand. It's already going up now due to simple market forces unrelated to EV's.


So I say "Oil has gone up by 375% or more in the past decade, this is bad" and you say "but electricity might go up in price too". Well, I think one is a little more rationale as a basis for policy. If we relax the environmental laws to allow for more oil productions, it will also lower the cost electricity.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/13/2012 6:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
LOL I knew you would go there. I just knew it.

The CIA doesn't know ANYTHING about oil exploration. They're only going by "proven oil resources" numbers from the USGS, and even that's out of date. Those estimates were made before things like horizontal drilling and fracing techniques came about anyway. We have far more oil in this country than your link claims. The Wiki? For the love of...

Focusing on "proven" oil resources is a distortion, and in no way is indicative of our true oil production potential. The U.S has an additional 145.5 billion barrels of "technically recoverable" oil reserves.

quote:
US does not have significant oil reserves.


False

http://groundwork.iogcc.org/topics-index/regulator...


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/12/2012 1:32:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
When you hold two patents and an electrical engineering degree, you can counter him with authority.


Funny. I am a multi-disciple engineer with 3 degrees, professional license to work in multiple states, and multiple patent "credits".

Guess what? Even the smartest engineer in the world can be wrong. My engineer training means very little if I come to the wrong conclusions. At no point in this or other articles have I ever used the logic "Trust me, I have engineering training." Its just bad bad bad logic.

I am reminded of Michelson, an Engineer/Scientist who set out to measure the speed of aether (the name of the field through which light moved). He discovered that there was no aether at all! Yet he went to deathbed feeling like he had failed because he had such a faith in the aether concept. He was brilliant experimentalist, yet it still didn't prevent him from coming to wrong conclusions. I doubt your linked friend is anywhere near as intelligent as Michelson, so I am not sure why he would be immune to the same faults.

quote:
Also you know jack shit about electricity. A level 3 EV charger is 440v and draws 400 amps! Do you even have a concept on what kind of power draw something running at 400 amps is?? And that's just one


So, this is the root of the problem eh? Thats a very poor assumption. A Level 3 Charger at 440V and 400amps provides 176 kW of power. Thats enough to charge a Leaf in less than 6 minutes. Not really sure WHY you ALWAYS have to recharge your cars so fast. My car spends 22/24 hours sitting some place.

quote:
The fact that you focus purely on volts and watts while ignoring amps proves me to you know NOTHING of the situation at hand


Volts*Amps=Watts

You really only need to talk about two of the quantities.

quote:
The guy spelled it out for you and you don't even want to believe it.


No the guy said the following. Since an EV is capable of using 100 kW at one time, and most homes typically peak at 25 kW, therefore we will need 4 times the electrical generation! (Power DNE Energy. Pretty big issue I think from an "Electrical Engineer")

Reclaimer, I've tried my very best to avoid ad hominum attacks, but I think you'd benefit tremendously from high school Physics.


RE: wonderful
By Jedi2155 on 2/13/2012 5:53:20 AM , Rating: 2
I have two engineering degree's (one in Electrical), working on my MSEE, and getting my Professional Engineer license very soon. I also have years of experience working at a Power utility. I have to say most of his numbers are crock.

He failed to analyze the entire situation and only paying attention to the absolute worse case situation and highlighted very unlikely scenarios thus making him extremely biased. Yes as an engineer you are suppose to analyze the entire situation and look for worse cases, but as an engineer it is your job to find those worse cases and MITIGATE them. Most of the issues he listed can all be mitigated if done intelligently which our "Smart Grid" is already working on do.

Not to mention his numbers are load of crock. 25% efficiency in a power plant? Heck no. Modern natural gas plants reach 60% thermal efficiency, compare that to your standard 20-30% efficiency in your standard gas car. Even accounting for all the inefficiencies of energy conversion's you are still looking at around 40% of that energy reaching wheels of an EV.

I only analyzed one aspect of that article as there are plenty of doozies in there.


RE: wonderful
By theapparition on 2/10/2012 10:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We're in the middle of a debt crisis, and paying rich people with taxpayer money we don't have (debt) to buy a gimmick play toy is just an absurd thing.

While I agree with you, tax breaks for the wealthy have always existed.

Take for example the tax break for company use vehicles that were over 6000lbs. While intended for farmers who are buying tractors (again, why are they getting a tax break?), Doctors and lawyers found out that they were also able to deduct quite a large sum if they purchased a Hummer.

So it's not just ridiculous green credits where people are able to get breaks. You're also able to deduct 2nd homes. So there are far too many loopholes in general.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 10:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
I completely agree. It's a big mess. But this is about the Tesla so I was trying to go micro on that issue.

I generally like "tax breaks" because I believe we should keep more of our own money. I believe the people can invest money more efficiently than the Government.

However I'm not sure in this case I would call a targeted EV subsidy on purchase a "tax break". It's not like you are taxed $7,500 when you buy a vehicle. And it's not applied fairly across all vehicles. This is a targeted incentive program to pick a technology other than gas powered cars.

It's market meddling and just plain wrong.


RE: wonderful
By Jedi2155 on 2/15/2012 11:47:33 AM , Rating: 2
The tax break is to address the issue that we still import far too much of our oil use. Whether its from a stable country like Canada, or non-US friendly states, the fact remains we are not self sufficient.


RE: wonderful
By AssBall on 2/10/2012 9:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
Economy of scale isn't going to start on a niche market luxury car.


RE: wonderful
By DukeN on 2/10/2012 11:36:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'm going to go ahead and take the unpopular stance here.

Technology that can transform industries should be helped fiscally by the government. This was the case in the 50s, 60s, 70s and it helped the major industrial powerhouses to gain traction (wouldn't have the GEs and the GMs today without it).

The kicker here is that it should only be for domestic enterprises, with domestic industry and not mass-outsourcers like Apple.

This will probably bring outcry from the typical scared-of-socialism Americans, but historically government fiscal aid of industry has led to products being more easily accessible to the average consumer, long term.

This is typically the easiest and best way for Government to provide stimulus, while backing development with multi-tier returns.


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 2:25:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The kicker here is that it should only be for domestic enterprises, with domestic industry and not mass-outsourcers like Apple.


Hell what do you think Tesla is? Teslas partners are:

Toyota
Panasonic
Daimler


The body is built in France. The panels and chassis is assembled in England.

The only difference between Apple and Tesla is that the final product is assembled here. And oh yeah, Apple is successful and has demand for it's products. But to call the Tesla American made or a domestic effort doesn't wash.

Billions of dollars of taxpayer money goes to Tesla, which the goes around the world to various suppliers, only to return us a product that nobody is buying buy the wealthy and in extremely insignificant numbers. Sounds like a good deal to you?


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 2:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Oh and the batteries are from Panasonic, outsourced.


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/10/2012 3:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, Tesla is hardly American. Though to be fair, a much larger percentage of their expenditures to date have been in the US to US citizens than Apple.

quote:
Billions of dollars of taxpayer money goes to Tesla, which the goes around the world to various suppliers, only to return us a product that nobody is buying buy the wealthy and in extremely insignificant numbers.


And this is exactly what I am talking about.

Tesla's ATVM Loan was less than 500 million, of which it is unclear how much they have drawn. The subsidies in the form of 7,500 checks amount to less than 20 million. I seen around 40 million provided through California and Local Government assistance. Seems like we're short approx 1.4 Billion dollars of assistance to get to describing it as "Billions" even in the losest sense of the word. Potentially Reclaimer, you'd like to point me to this additional 1.4 Billion in US Federal, State, or Local assistance to Tesla?

(Is 1.4 billion really excusable as a "rounding" error? Even if we assume the entire ATVM loan is worth zero.)


RE: wonderful
By djcameron on 2/10/2012 11:07:20 AM , Rating: 2
Because they're the same people that make lots of campaign contributions!


RE: wonderful
By Reclaimer77 on 2/10/2012 2:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
No see, we can't talk about campaign contributions when it comes to EV's and things that are popular with Democrats and liberals. They save that as a trump card against Republicans for class warfare attacks.

That's why I've been purposefully bringing up the fact that Musk is rich on this topic. I thought maybe I could get them to take their own medicine. But alas...


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/11/2012 2:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
http://fundrace.huffingtonpost.com/neighbors.php?t...

Maybe this will help Reclaimer?

Elon Musk gives to both Democrats and Republicans. Though it seems he favored Hillary Clinton over Barrak Obama in the last election. And he favors Democrats by a nearly 2:1 margin. Or maybe your suggesting he's spamming 199 dollar contributions?

Personally, if you can buy a politician for the types of contributions I am seeing... why get a few your friends to chip in and you too can roll like Musk.


RE: wonderful
By Jedi2155 on 2/13/2012 5:21:18 AM , Rating: 2
We are subsiding electric vehicles because it improves national security by making us less dependent on foreign sources of energy. Plus oil companies already are subsidized plenty.

Isn't national security the #1 role of government?


RE: wonderful
By Keeir on 2/13/2012 2:26:09 PM , Rating: 2
This is not a great argument.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, the majority of US oil imports come from stable trading partners who really pose little threat to the US.

quote:
Plus oil companies already are subsidized plenty.


Not really. Oil companies for the most part pay some of the highest rates of taxes amount all corporations. Do they pay the full amount? No, but no company does. Furthermore, since Corporation taxes are essentially just taken from consumers, so reduced tax rates on gasoline companies, just means a slightly lower price for gasoline.

Subsidies for many renewable efforts are very different. They involve not just lower taxes, but actually -giving- money to the company.

For example, Tesla pays little to no income taxes, just paying payroll taxes. If Tesla defaults on their loan, the US government will have given them millions of dollars more then the sum of tax receipts from them. This is not the case with any "oil" subsidy.

To suggest they are on the same level is stupid. There is a marked difference. Just as the EITC is drastically different than a tax reduction for the "rich". The EITC not only goes to 0, it -gives- other people's money to the person, while reducing a tax just means the government takes less...

The real issue with oil is the last decade of unstable prices and high inflation in price. We need a solution for economic stability more than any other reason. The solution could be any of dozens of things really... I think PHEV is the best personally, but that is just my opinion based on the numbers I have seen, read, and understood.


RE: wonderful
By Jedi2155 on 2/15/2012 10:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
As I have pointed out elsewhere, the majority of US oil imports come from stable trading partners who really pose little threat to the US.


This may be true, but do you believe the Iraq War was not a war to serve our economic interests? I would like to know your thoughts on this. I personally believe that if it was war for economic interests then it was an even more stupid war.

But lets say it was for economic reasons, then we still paid an exorbitant amount for the pitiful amount of oil from Iraq (4% of our national needs). That statistic inflates our average cost to $13/gallon. This is all moot, if you do not consider our military actions to be related of course.


Rear doors ?
By carcanuck on 2/10/2012 12:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
Completely ridiculous, impractical and a waste of money. Are you even able to open the rear doors when parked in your garage? Why would you design all the extra cost and engineering into the vehicle when it won't help sell anymore or any less model X' s. It will how ever make it more difficult to get 5 star on side impact and roll over. Remember Elon it's a mode of transportation not a space ship...




RE: Rear doors ?
By de704 on 2/10/2012 1:47:27 AM , Rating: 2
Cool beats practicality hands down every time. That's why tomorrow I'm going to reserve the Model X on top of the Model S that I already have reserved.


RE: Rear doors ?
By NicodemusMM on 2/10/2012 3:45:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Remember Elon it's a mode of transportation not a space ship...


Are you trying to imply that a space ship isn't a mode of transportation? :)

Anyway, with the engineering resources that they have available I'm sure Elon can manage the details just fine without your... expertise.

I agree with your comment regarding practicality, but I'd be willing to bet that Tesla is willing to bet that uniqueness is more of a selling point for their products. For now at least. Besides, it's only a waste of money if the bearer of said money deems it so.


RE: Rear doors ?
By Isidore on 2/10/2012 4:40:30 AM , Rating: 2
All very fine and dandy but what happens when you roll over a fat tall vehicle like this? The Mercedes SLS, much less likely to overturn, takes this issue seriously enough to have explosive bolts on the door hinges of its falcon/ gull/ stuka wing doors. Another issue that many ignore with all these electric vehicles: cost of ownership. While the technology is improving, the cost and life of the batteries is a critical problem. What will someone be prepared to pay for one of these after say three years, with the looming and enormous potential bill for a replacement battery pack? Until the batteries, costing a very significant proportion of the value of the new car but having a limited life, have saner economics, such vehicles are marginal at best.


RE: Rear doors ?
By Paj on 2/10/2012 8:24:19 AM , Rating: 2
Don't think they're going after the mass market just yet.


RE: Rear doors ?
By Just Tom on 2/10/2012 9:10:21 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx

The doors do not extend too far from the car, in fact it appears that they extend less than traditional doors.


I'll give it some credit
By FITCamaro on 2/10/2012 7:22:12 AM , Rating: 1
It does look good. Other than those hideous rear doors.




RE: I'll give it some credit
By JediJeb on 2/10/2012 2:33:07 PM , Rating: 2
I don't even mind the rear doors that much, always like the old Mercedes gullwings. If Tesla will continue to work on bringing the prices down to a more mass market level while still achieving the 200+ mile range I will wish them the best of success. Musk has done a lot to bring down the cost of space launches with his Falcon rockets, maybe he can do the same for EVs. I also don't begrudge anyone for making a good profit as long as they don't try to totally screw over their customers and investors.


Looks...
By unplug on 2/10/2012 1:51:58 AM , Rating: 2
...at my Aston Martin Roadster. Ya no, I'm good.




By Mint on 2/12/2012 6:09:13 AM , Rating: 2
Or have I been influenced too much by commercials?

Seems to me that PHEV would be a much better fit for this type of car than pure EV.




looks like a nissan/infiniti 2014
By RamarC on 2/12/2012 9:35:20 PM , Rating: 2
and a good thing since tesla won't be able to deliver a production car but nissan might buy the design.




"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki