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
What would happen to the ladies if the oil run out?
They'd kill more whales.
Just think of a world without oil...
No more trans fatty acids...
Everything will be bone dry and screeching.
Those who are saying only middle east will be affected if oil usage drops has no idea of petro dollar
I like trains. They're good for the environment and the most efficient and safe way of transporting people and goods.
>
Sure, except that a Subaru is by no means comparable to the Tesla, that's like comparing a bus to a plane. Now take a diesel powered car, averaging at 5 liters per 100 km (not a fair comparison at all given the fact that the Tesla uses a lot more in practice compared to the actual usage of the diesel, due bad weather and what not, but let's skip that for now). This diesel emits around 88 grams of CO2 per kilometer.
200000 kilometers makes 10,000 liters of diesel, that's 12000 euro. That's more expensive compared to the Tesla, but in countries where electricity is actually more expensive than yours (around 0,25 euro here) the Tesla is actually more expensive to run. This becomes worse when you have to use charging points, not all people have driveways of their own and thus have to charge at a public charging point, which is at least 0,35 euro per kWh where I live.
Factor in the lifespan of the batteries and the emission originated during the production of said batteries, it's really not that hard to calculate the benefits of any eco diesel / petrol car over a Tesla in terms of environment. The few Tesla's that made it all the way up to 300,000 kilometers had their batteries replaced at least two times. I was still going strong on my first turbo around that mileage.
Fart is the issue. Billions farting every single day.
Good to see you again, Ronnie.
And not just a single time.
Video unavailable
The uploader has not made this video available in your country.
Its ELO - Mr. Blue Sky. I'm answering threads with ELO answers today, because Jeff Lynne deserves more attention for being awesome.
Yeah, I love "Showdown".
Lard brother, pure lard.
Nonsense.
There are no diesels in the same class as a Tesla. If you compare to cars of similar size (Like a big Audi a8 or some kind of SUV), those diesels use a heck of a lot more than 5l/100km. Not to mention, even small diesels like a VW Sirocco use a lot if you drive them agressivly. And no one buys a sirocco to drive conservatively.
Finally, you are comparing tailpipe emissions to powerplant and production emissions which is totally unfair. How about all the emissions from oil exploration, pumping, refining and transporting? That requires an enormous amount of energy.
Even if powered by coal, EVs tend to win out over ICE. The eco break even point is typically around 100k KM.
Sure.
I reckon this is coming from a Tesla driver? No offense though, really, but stating that there are no diesels in the same class as a Tesla is an empty statement, at best. There are many cars that are of an even higher class than the Model S, including but not limited to some Mercedes, BMW, RangeRover, Audi and Volvo cars.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to bash Tesla or anything, I like their way of approaching things and the car itself is great. I'm just really annoyed by people stating that driving a Tesla is good for the environment while this has simply been proven wrong many times. A quick Google search leads to this:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5880609/Tesla-electric-cars-not-greener-petrol-ones-according-UK-data.html
Now I'm fully aware that this depends on many factors so some researches conclude otherwise. But stating that driving a Tesla is better for the environment than driving a petrol or diesel car is only true under certain circumstances (e.g. climate and the continent where you charge your battery).
A VW Scirocco is what, a 2 liter diesel at 140 bhp? I've averaged a 2.0 diesel engine with 136 bhp at less than 5.5 liters / 100 km over more than 100,000 km. And that includes many trips over the Autobahn in Germany, where there is no speed limit other than the limit of the car which was around 205 km/h. And all that is in a car with a kerb weight of 1456 kg. Nowadays I drive a 1.6 diesel in a car that has a kerb weight of 1257 kg, and it averages at approximately 4.5 liters / 100 km. And that includes things like driving over the Autobahn at 200 km/h with 2 passengers and the trunk fully loaded.
As for conservative driving: an ICE is actually more economical when driven aggressively as it is simply more efficient on higher RPM. That obviously is not the case if you're driving from traffic light to traffic light, but in general it's better to floor it than driving gently. So yeah, I drive quite aggressively as soon as the engine hits operating temperature which actually contributes to the low average fuel consumption.
But, how about you go and drive a Tesla aggressively? It'll be a whole lot worse compared to a ICE powered car. Admittedly, an electric car beats an ICE in city driving at any time of the day (which is why Hybrids are a pretty good idea IMO, as they have the best of both worlds). But on the motorway, it's the other way around. Now that I come to think of it, most Tesla's (in Western Europe at least) I come across on the motorway are usually driving around 100 km/h due to the poor mileage they get when they don't and the lack of option to charge quickly at their destination, especially in the winter. It pretty much cuts in half when they start driving 130 - 140 km/h.
Not exactly. Because you also need to factor in the production of the oil used in powerplants, next to the exploration and pumping of gas, coal, lignite, and whatever else.
Source please?
@solaire,
I'll answer your questions/points in reverse order.
https://greentransportation.info/energy-transportation/evs-need-clean-electricity.html
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
Even when you factor all that in, EVs win out. It's almost impossible for an ICE to win actually because the refining process alone takes up a HUGE amount of ELECTRICAL energy. Almost as much electrical energy goes into refining fuel as you can get out from it.
https://greentransportation.info/energy-transportation/gasoline-costs-6kwh.html
Now some people would dispute this figure of 6kwh/gallon (about 1.5kwh per litre), but it's certainly not nothing. Halve it and EVs are still much much cleaner to run.
And if you want to use the argument that you can refine fuel with renewable energy, then of course the same is true for recharging an EV. So this one factor alone can basically put EVs ahead, even assuming the pumping, exploration and transportation had 0 emissions.
This is so wrong I don't know where to begin. I think you are confusing efficiency and energy consumption. Most Tesla drivers may drive on motorways at 100-120km/hr because there is a range hit when driving beyond these speeds, particularly in the winter. This is also true of any ICE. My VW Golf will easily do 5l/100km at around 90-100km/h, but it will use upwards of 7l/100km when passing 120km/h. A 20% increase in speed increased consumption by 40%. But my 50litr tank at 7k/100km can still get me over 700km of range. If you drive at the speed that would acheive the advertised fuel economy by the manufacturer, a full tank should get about 1,000 KM.
A typical Tesla starts off with a range of about 350-400KM, and that's if you drive at that 100KM/h speed in good conditions. Drive at 120-130 and your range drops to about 260-300KM. And given recharging times, and lack of infrastructure, if you're going on a long journey, it makes sense to drive slower.
Actually this makes it more efficient. Teslas in particular have very low drag coefficients, 90+% efficient drive train and 90+% efficient charging. An ICE is at best 30% efficient at the point of combustion.
Most cars are designed to be most efficient at 80-100KM/hr. Any faster and it is far less efficient in most cases. This is particularly true for cars with poor Cd design.
I really do not see the point of using 'average' figures. As you have pointed out, EVs beat out on ICE in cities, hands down. This is especially true for cold engines, and ESPECIALLY true of cold diesel engines. Petrol is far better than Diesel for short hops from cold starts within cities. EVs are vastly superior to petrols in city conditions.
Okay so how about highways? I've covered this above. The only way you're getting efficient consumption on highways is if you're driving conservatively.
I never claimed, nor do I think driving an EV is good for the environment. It is my position that all driving of any kind is bad for the environment. But obviously some forms are worse than others. And EVs, in almost all circumstances are the least harmful.
The only time an ICE really wins is if you're looking at a used ICE, and hardly ever drive. So if you're basically buying a used car to do a weekly shopping run of 20KM, then it's better to stick with an ICE. But actually it's better to walk, cycle or use public transport, if available.
You use of the daily mail in the UK as a source is an odd one given it is not by any stretch of the imagination considered a reputable new source. Not to mention, that article actually does not 'prove' your point at all. It explicitly uses the word 'may', which is probably just to cover there arses.
Correct. I am a Tesla driver. But if you think my owning/driving a Tesla makes me bias, then perhaps you are bias because you choose to drive a Diesel? And this is why you defend it? Or do you drive a Diesel because you believe it is better?
As for the class argument, my statement is true if you are factoring in the performance. There is NO DIESEL offered by any manufacturer that comes remotly close to the performance figures you get from a Tesla.
The most common arguments I see against Teslas is that there are other cars more efficient, and compare it to things like Priuses and the like.
The fact is, a Tesla actually competes quite well with even the most efficient and frugal of cars, including the Prius! In terms of overall energy consumption and cost, a Tesla actually holds up pretty well against a Prius.
In terms of performance it holds out pretty well against high end sport and super cars!
In terms of cargo capacity and seating, it holds up pretty well against big SUVs and minivans.
Please name for me a single Diesel that has the performance, space and efficiency of a Tesla Model S or X. They do not exist.
There are some wonderful Audis/Mercedes/BMW/RangeRovers/Volvos that make compares that do compete on some level.
In terms of luxury, especially at the same price point, all those brands generally beat out the Tesla, which has some catching up to do in that department.
But you know the Audi A8 has LESS cargo space than the much smaller Tesla Model 3. And the A8 is a very large car. A Model S has MORE cargo space than a Range Rover Sport. A Model X has even more than a Model S.
So I'm sorry but I stand by my position that there are no manufacturers offering cars in even remotely the same class.
If you want to specifically pick a class to which you can compare a Tesla, then the Tesla will typically beat it out by a very wide margin in other areas.
This is not to say that I think EVs is for everyone, or that everyone should buy, own and drive a Tesla. There are instances where you're better off with an ICE, and where an ICE is actually better for (or less harmful) for the environment. But those conditions are few and, and shrinking fast. New EVs coming out all the time, and with improving range and efficiency. So one day...
Everything is always very complicated. Take for instance this material, dysprosium, that is necessary in all electric vehicles. In popular mechanics they stated that the demand will increase by 2500% in the next 25 years. China produces 98% of this material, at one point more than half was illegally produced with tremendous polluting effects. A quick read but skip to page 31 for most relevant info.
http://1b9dn310cnw45swh730g66pj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Adamas-Intelligence-Spotlight-on-Dysprosium-April_2018.pdf
Despite potential shortages there are technological breakthroughs: "Given the pronounced decline in global dysprosium production since 2013, coupled with explosive demand growth for electric vehicle traction motors, wind power generators, industrial robots, and other end-uses of high-temperature NdFeB, Adamas Intelligence believes that if not for the above-described dysprosium thrifting techniques, the global market would currently be facing substantial dysprosium shortages." That being said that technological innovation can stall shortages, was Shell Sky in their predictions of mass adoption of electric vehicles in the next couple decades assuming there would be no such shortages of this material or of the many other minerals and metals, some of which come primarily from conflict areas, that are also susceptible to shortages? When a shortage occurs, prices go up, will this affect the price of electric vehicles and thus their adoption? The thing is that when you allocate so much of those resources to that purpose then they end up getting more and more expensive as does everything else that utilizes those resources which is why I am skeptical as to majority of new car sales being electric vehicles by 2050 as claimed by Shell Sky. What determines their adoption is the price and policy. Should we force people, by way of economics or policy, to not drive combustion, especially in impoverished countries or say impoverished people in America? Then less people will drive and economies will suffer.
It also makes them much easier to control. Give them Netflix, but take their guns and ensure they can't travel more than 4 hours at a time, welp..
In the meanwhile, in bizarro Europe...
Straw-man argument. Not everyone lives within 15 km of a clean-coal enviornment to keep themselves heated and fed.
I don't think you know what's a straw-man argument, then. Besides, I wasn't arguing anything, @WSS
Sorry it took me a few months to get back to this. Time to look at this discussion again.
Your first source clearly states it's a factoid. From your second source:
Which actually proves my point that this is different for different parts of the world. In Scandinavia EV's are probably a no brainer, in the rest of the world not so much I'd say.
To get rid of measuring just tailpipe emissions, here's a study that also takes into account the production of battery's, etc:
https://interestingengineering.com/diesel-cars-are-cleaner-than-some-evs-new-study-suggests
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-16/the-dirt-on-clean-electric-cars
See above. In your source it actually reads that it may very well refer to 6 kwh per gallon of petrol. And on top of that, I was talking of diesel engines, not petrol. That's by no means a fair comparison given the fact that petrol engines not only exhaust more CO2, they're also much thirstier.
Very much depends on your source of energy as I've stated above, plus your actual mileage for an electric car.
Agreed.
I wasn't exactly saying this isn't true for ICE, I was saying this is less applicable for an ICE. But I agree I've phrased this incorrectly and mixed efficiency and energy consumption.
What I was trying to say is that an ICE at higher speeds is more efficient compared to an ICE at lower speeds. An EV on the other hand is less efficient at higher speeds than at lower speeds. One reason being the simplest: it's weight. But also the way an EV engine is designed makes it slightly less efficient at higher speeds. I do agree they still beat ICE's in terms of efficiency, but the impact seems to be worse on EV's than on ICE's. Same applies if you attach a trailer to an EV. Though technically they are well-designed to do the job, the batteries will wear much quicker and efficiency takes a large hit.
Any car nowadays has low drag coefficients. You're right on the drive train part, though.
IMO, average is what matters in the end. Peak load is unfair to compare, plus there's many factors that affect the consumption on an ICE (engine temperature being one).
Overdrive gear.
All right, seems like we have found something we agree on
. Seems I misjudged your post for some reason.
If you just Google around you can find plenty of researches that prove either of our points. Fact is that it depends on so many factors that there isn't a simple answer and the both of us can be right depending on how you (or the research) look(s) at it.
I'm sure I'm biased, but I actually drive a diesel because I believe it is better (at least right now). EV would be cheaper to drive (plenty of tax benefits), the only con being that charging takes a long time compared to fueling my diesel car. But I went for a diesel powered car because I believe it's best for the environment for my driving behavior (compared to petrol / EV).
Sure, diesel won't because fast diesels aren't really a thing. I wouldn't say ICE's don't come remotely close, though:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration#By_0–100_km/h_time_or_0–60_mph_(0%E2%80%9397_km/h)(3.0_seconds_or_less)%5Bi%5D%5Bii%5D
Agreed. I was actually looking to buy a car last year and was looking at a Lexus CT200h (has the same drivetrain as the Prius). But it lost against a diesel in terms of efficiency and costs.
Performance: no. Efficiency: no. Space: quite a few (Volvo XC90 being the first that pops to mind, being only classified as a midsize SUV). I agree that's comparing apples to oranges, but you asked for any car
But aye, Tesla's are unique and that is a good thing.
Agreed.
That's perfectly fine. I'm not after changing your opinion, I'm enjoying hearing your arguments and writing down my own. In the end we can each have our own opinion (and I strongly believe we will), and I do respect your opinion. I'm not saying you changed my opinion, but you did make valid points that changed the way I'm looking at EV's to some extend.
Completely agree with the "one day" part. It's just not there yet IMO, but I'm definitely looking forward to that day. And I do understand that Tesla is contributing a lot to that day, as well as any other manufacturer who is working on EV's. It's the future for sure.
I made the point that if the energy required to refine fuel was used to charge a battery instead of refine fuel, you could travel almost as many miles on that energy alone as you could from the refined fuel.
So source of electricity, and emissions produced, is almost irrelevant on this basis alone.
But of course the efficiency of the energy production factors in on overall emissions. Coal can be around upto 50% efficient. But that doesnt mean that all coal power is 50% efficient, it's more likely to be 30%. So if you compare a low efficiency coal power plant charging an EV to an ICE that has had it's fuel refined with renewables (yes that's a thing!), then the ICE MIGHT be slightly less polluting. But it's silly to cherry pick like this. So I don't think your point is proved at all since such a situation does not exist in real life.
Using averages then EV will always win. It actually works in your favor to use extreme cases. But averages work heavily in EVs favor.
There will always be outlier cases where an EV is not better. I've said as much. But there are very very few cases where an EV is not cleaner overall. If you are comparing 2 new similar class cars, I actually cannot think of a real world situation where an EV isn't better.
As mentioned before, if you drive 100 miles per year, even the most gas guzzling of USED gas guzzlers would be cleaner.
New or used? Would you care to elaborate on your situation to show how you have come to this conclusion?
Once we start talking about performance, then they definitely lose on efficiency. A Tesla M3 performance is still about 95% as efficient as the most efficient version of the Model 3. This is not true of any ICE. It's either made for efficiency or performance, or a compromise of the 2 where you get something in between.
The point was they don't exist... Everything is a compromise. You cant have performance and efficiency in one. And you normally don't get practicality with performance either.
It's not far away IMO. That day is already here for a very large portion of the developed world. Renewables are growing fast. Existing coal/oil/gas fired power plants are getting more efficient, nuclear also contributes a lot to CO2 free energy (France is practically 100% Nuclear). So there are few countries in the developed world that an ICE is cleaner than EV.
Since you drive a Diesel, and you say it is the cleanest option, I must 1 or more of the following:
Actually buying a used EV and driving few miles may not be good if it deprives someone who drives many miles per year from buying that EV. Resources are not efficiently distributed. If all Taxis were EV, there would be much more significant savings since they drive like 50+k Miles per year.
Yes.
Pitiful us, always debating out of our arses when something new comes along.
FAT11
Yeah.
PS: But you're right.
ps This post is sponsored by Saudi Aramco
Real men drive petrol cars.