New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
eol treatment yay.
and also USD ?
EV battery tech needs some major tech upgrade for cheaper , more mileage and superfast charging . Once this is done , days of oil cars will be over .
Middle east is completely depended on oil. US not so much. US / Canada will suffer but not the end of world for them.
For Middle east, it will be the end.
much of the USD power and consequently USA dominance comes from USD which is bound to oil . Most oil countries accept USD as payment due to which USA is super power now . There is a conspiracy Anybody who try to remove USD from oil payment gets killed . gaddafi and some got killed for that
Not after the Arabic spring , the Middle east already down to hell , My self I conciser Oil as curse not gift at all
You should keep the author's bias in mind when reading this...
https://www.energyandpolicy.org/lesser-climate-denier-attacks-electric-vehicles/
https://www.manhattan-institute.org/expert/jonathan-lesser
I reckon, as oil reserve go low, we will move to EV cars for ordinary people and will exclusively use combustion engine for industry needs.
My tiny brain says oil will hold its economic power for at least 500 years.
But firs thing first, we need better batteries for our cellphones.
Do you not find the battery holds less charge in winter, and the heating of passenger compartment drains the battery quickly ?
If it fair to say city short commute is more suitable for EV than long distance country commute in -30C ?
Capacity will decrease and internal resistance will increase in a low temp environment.
So tell me then, why do we not have electricity plants that generate electricity via gasoline if it's so much better than coal? I know for a 'fact' that in the united states coal plants are required by the govt to have filtering on all exhaust stacks that do not allow hardly any harmful biproducts into the atmosphere. Most developed countries employ this filtering.
The dominant leader in electricity generation in the states that I know for a fact does this spent billions of dollars to install scrubbers and other pollution air filters across all their coal fired power plants.
Um..., it wasn't me. I swear I didn't do it. I don't know nothing.
Here is chuck posting useless shit again. @PieNotEvenEaten
The car controls battery temperature when it's running.
Do I really sound like a gasoline shill?
I'm all for nuclear power plants and closing down all coal plants. However I know that's not a realistic target, especially when people of countries like Germany are a PITA in this regard.
While it's true that almost all coal plants do employ filtering of substances like sulphur and ash, they do NOTHING with COx emissions. And they also do NOTHING about the fact that we're going to run out of coal eventually.
That's an interesting spin, that someone who might drive more would make a better projected lack-of-destruction than any asshole keeping a dinosaur-burning beast running, considering the amount of wasted fuel in creating a new EV.
The breakeven point with regards to CO2 emissions for manufacturing an EV vs an ICE is actually very short. Something like 6-12 months for average usage in most developed countries.
The break even point is even less if distance driven is larger or if electricity comes from renewable sources.
Even if powered by coal, emissions break even at around 6 years given average distances driven.
It is logical to conclude that those who drive the most can reduce the most emissions by switching to an EV.
Love my electric car! Tesla P3D+
Self-sufficiency doesn't include oil, especially those countries that have none.
That's not true, AEP does COx scrubbing too, and the scrubbing technology is getting better and better. They inject the captured CO2 1.5 miles and further into rock formations.
While true, by your logic gasoline would indeed be a fine fuel for power plants.
So you... want to keep coal?
Nice! Here's mine.
I had the privilege of driving a PM3 with the family while holidaying in Miami.
My S is an older S 60, without any of the auto pilot stuff. The new fully loaded 3 is a whole other beast. Violently fast, and excellent handling. But I still prefer the S. The 3 is just too small for me (funnily enough given I live in LT and HK where roads are narrow and windy).
Planning to upgrade to a 100D at some point. Will definitely get the autopilot stuff.
I kind of want to get all the different models. Park them all side by side and spell out S3XY Roadster. Ahh, that would be living the dream. Shame there isn't a Tesla presence in LT.
No I don't. I just think the emissions studies are off by today's studies. I'm for nuclear,wind, solar, and geothermal. Hell even natural gas is better.
Even when powered by coal, EVs are still cleaner:
https://electrek.co/2017/11/01/electric-cars-dirty-electricicty-coal-emission-cleaner-study/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal
Of course this is not universally true, as it depends on the efficiency of the coal power plant, and certain other factors. But on average it is true, and only a few cases is it not true. As I have already pointed out, someone who drives few miles per year would obviously not benefit the environment switching to EV.
It does not take 5 minutes once you factor in the time to drive to the petrol station and pay.
Of course on long trips you save more time with petrol than you do recharging. Even with the might Tesla superchargers, it takes over 30 minutes to get to get about 300km. But I charge at home, so I almost never need to visit a charging station. So there are conveniences to be had driving an EV. It depends on circumstances.
I think economics is a good indicator of whether or not switching to an EV makes sense.
If it cost you less to go EV, it's certainly going to be better for the environment. If it doesn't save you money long term to switch to an EV, then you probably should stick with what you've got until an EV beats out.
But it really doesn't take that long. Consider in Europe, most cars use what? 7l/100km? Fuel cost EUR 1.20/l? Drive 20k KM/yr = 1,680 EUR /yr. An EV costs about EUR 2 / 100KM. So the same distance only cost around 400 EUR. So you save 1,280 EUR /yr in fuel. A brand new Prius cost about 25K EUR. A Kona EV is about 35K EUR. You break even within 7-8 years. Obviously anyone driving more than 20k KM/yr would benefit more. For sure within that 7-8 year period, the Kona would have far fewer emissions than that Prius.
With that in mind, you may argue that anyone who buys a Prius would probably get better than 7l/100km (though it is not clear that is actually the case in real world driving conditions), and you could also say it's an unfair comparison because the Kona ICE is only 17k EUR.... So the difference is a whole 8K less...
But speaking from experience, I went from a small VW Golf to a Model S, and I save about 4,000 EUR /yr in fuel. Which is an unfair comparison because the Gold is significantly smaller and cannot carry anything like cargo capacity of the S. And I drive a lot, so it's an unfair comparison.
Let's see:
200000 km is a good lifespan for a car. Fuel here costs 1.2 EUR-ish on average, consumption is around 8L / 100km (Subaru Outback). That's 16000 liters of petrol, e.g. 19200 EUR.
EPA says 20.09kWh / 100km for Model S 90D, e.g. 40.18MWh. Power here costs ~0.2 EUR / kWh, which translates to roughly 8036 EUR.
11k EUR difference in usage costs is not that small. But does it warrant paying twice or thrice as much for the car itself? That's where the math ends - each person likes a different kind of car.
Note that I calculated this for Tesla, which seems like its batteries last. EVs of some other companies certainly had problems with battery longevity, which means factoring in the cost of a new battery as well.
Numbers don't matter. EV is the future.
Oil will run out at one point.
If scientists manage to make the power-to-gas process viable, EVs are not gonna be the future.
P2G solves all current issues - viable long term energy storage (for wind and solar farms), convenience (transporting gas much easier than recharging batteries), environmental friendliness (things like methane burn very clean)...
But I'm afraid we're not there yet. Let's just hope.
If you're using Tesla numbers, you should compare with cars in the same / similar class. Model 3 is not that expensive these days. Not available yet in Europe, but you can pick up the mid range model (which still has a respectable 250mi range) for $44k. It has more cargo space than an Audi A8 and still accelerates like a sports car.
It is comparable in price an Audi A6 or BMW 4 series, but has vastly superior performance, a higher safety rating. No way these cars are getting 7l/100km without driving carefully. Driving a Model 3 aggressively is still pretty easy to get less than 20kwh per 100KM thanks to the efficient drive train and regenerative braking. The economics of buying a Model 3 over any luxury car is pretty clear.
If you compare it to cheap cars like Hyundai, Honda and Toyota, yes, it's hard to justify. The break even point is very long. But a Tesla is in a totally different class. No one compares a BMW M3 to a Toyota Prius. People compare Teslas to every other car because it actually competes quite well on every dimension. It competes with small economical cars on operating costs, it competes with super cars on performance, and it competes with much larger cars in terms of cargo capacity, particularly the S and X. These comparisons are somewhat silly, but the fact that they are made is quite telling.
For me, I needed a bigger car for my family. I didn't want a big gas guzzler, but I still needed the space for all the crap you inevitably haul around with you when you do have a family. I could have bought a Jaguary F-Type for less than my Model S and that would certainly be a better drivers car, but it's not practical. I could have got Rangerover Sport, but it actually has less space than the Model S, certainly uses a shit ton of fuel, and isn't exactly 'performant'. So for me, it was a car that made the most sense. This will not be true for everyone, but you gotta compare with the right car, and not always a Tesla.
The Kona EV is cheap and has good range. There are even cheaper EVs with shorter range for city commuting. It all depends on the needs.
By networking anology:
diesel / patrol = ipv4
electric = ipv6
sooner or later we need ipv6 for our environment ( interwebs ) but v4 is also ok and will be ok in the future.
Funny thing is the U.S. has reserves of oil that we do not even use. Oil runs out it will hurt the middle east far, far more then the U.S. They are trying with electricity over here, but it is slow going. The cost of doing it here is astronomical and most people will not do shit unless they are forced to do it.
We are hoarders over here, for like just about everything. Freaken people's houses full of shit and you can't move through them.