Tesla Model 3 revealed
Discussion
Blaster72 said:
Oil is completely different, stick it in a ship or a pipeline and send it anywhere in the world no problem.
define "no problem"?? I'd say moving millions of tonnes of highly poluting material round the world in a fleet or ships, tankers or pipelines isn't "no problem". We only think it is "no problem" because we already do it. If you sat down today, to create the worldwide oil network we enjoy, from scratch, i'm pretty sure "no problem" would not be words that feature heavily........(and if you are including transmissions losses for 'lecy, you must do the same for oil, and include the energy required to move it from source to sink. One advantage of 'lecy is that due to the number of different ways we can generate electricity, and the fact the end consumer is agnostic to the source, the average distance, and hence loss, between source and sink could be smaller than for oil!)
Apropos of nothing in particular, I've just got back from a trip to Stockholm and was surprised at the number of Teslas there were in the taxi fleets - I presume they have good subsidies/tax breaks over there. Riding in the back of a Model S was a total delight: spacious, comfy, smooth. The quality of everything was top notch, and the huge central screen was a thing of beauty - massive hi-res maps dominating with the surrounding functions putting every other in-car display I've seen to shame. I suspect it wouldn't take too many airport runs to drain the batteries, but I would imagine that these guys have factored that in - if the tech is good enough, and cheap enough, to be feasible as a full-time taxi then I would say the traditional fleet of Mercs/Passats is living on borrowed time.
That's only a view from the back seat - but if this is the future of transport, count me in.
That's only a view from the back seat - but if this is the future of transport, count me in.
Max_Torque said:
Blaster72 said:
Oil is completely different, stick it in a ship or a pipeline and send it anywhere in the world no problem.
define "no problem"?? I'd say moving millions of tonnes of highly poluting material round the world in a fleet or ships, tankers or pipelines isn't "no problem". We only think it is "no problem" because we already do it. If you sat down today, to create the worldwide oil network we enjoy, from scratch, i'm pretty sure "no problem" would not be words that feature heavily........(and if you are including transmissions losses for 'lecy, you must do the same for oil, and include the energy required to move it from source to sink. One advantage of 'lecy is that due to the number of different ways we can generate electricity, and the fact the end consumer is agnostic to the source, the average distance, and hence loss, between source and sink could be smaller than for oil!)
Creating enough juice for EV's and getting it to where it needs to be is a huge problem - transmission losses are of course to be included as one of those problems.
I'm just being a little practical as a lot of the EV evangelists seem to think the electricity they use comes for free as if by magic without any problems scaling up.
EV users here and now are getting the best of it all, scarcely used and often free infrastructure plus lots of tax breaks. The more people start using them, the more these things will disappear and that shiny new EV will seem very unattractive when it starts costing the same per mile to run as a petrol engined car.
Explain again, just where is this energy to power all those EV's going to come from??
skyrover said:
Mr Will said:
With current tech there are transmission losses of ~3.5% per 1000km. The Sahara is less than 3000km from the UK. Transmission losses of less than 10% seem quite manageable to me. Even going equator to pole is still 70% efficient.
The bigger problem is the politics. Just as with oil pipelines, getting permission to build massive infrastructure across multiple countries is extremely difficult. Oil has the alternative of using ships. Electricity has no such option.
your figures are a bit optimisticThe bigger problem is the politics. Just as with oil pipelines, getting permission to build massive infrastructure across multiple countries is extremely difficult. Oil has the alternative of using ships. Electricity has no such option.
"Transmitting electricity at high voltage reduces the fraction of energy lost to resistance, which varies depending on the specific conductors, the current flowing, and the length of the transmission line. For example, a 100-mile (160 km) 765 kV line carrying 1000 MW of power can have losses of 1.1% to 0.5%. A 345 kV line carrying the same load across the same distance has losses of 4.2%."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_trans...
From the same wiki page: "As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for direct-current transmission was determined to be 7,000 km (4,300 mi). For alternating current it was 4,000 km (2,500 mi)"
Blaster72 said:
Max_Torque said:
Blaster72 said:
Oil is completely different, stick it in a ship or a pipeline and send it anywhere in the world no problem.
define "no problem"?? I'd say moving millions of tonnes of highly poluting material round the world in a fleet or ships, tankers or pipelines isn't "no problem". We only think it is "no problem" because we already do it. If you sat down today, to create the worldwide oil network we enjoy, from scratch, i'm pretty sure "no problem" would not be words that feature heavily........(and if you are including transmissions losses for 'lecy, you must do the same for oil, and include the energy required to move it from source to sink. One advantage of 'lecy is that due to the number of different ways we can generate electricity, and the fact the end consumer is agnostic to the source, the average distance, and hence loss, between source and sink could be smaller than for oil!)
Creating enough juice for EV's and getting it to where it needs to be is a huge problem - transmission losses are of course to be included as one of those problems.
I'm just being a little practical as a lot of the EV evangelists seem to think the electricity they use comes for free as if by magic without any problems scaling up.
EV users here and now are getting the best of it all, scarcely used and often free infrastructure plus lots of tax breaks. The more people start using them, the more these things will disappear and that shiny new EV will seem very unattractive when it starts costing the same per mile to run as a petrol engined car.
Explain again, just where is this energy to power all those EV's going to come from??
We have plenty of energy available now for off peak charging, which is when most charging will be done. A domestic PV instalation can provide enough power for an EV if you want to go totally green.
deckster said:
Apropos of nothing in particular, I've just got back from a trip to Stockholm and was surprised at the number of Teslas there were in the taxi fleets - I presume they have good subsidies/tax breaks over there. Riding in the back of a Model S was a total delight: spacious, comfy, smooth. The quality of everything was top notch, and the huge central screen was a thing of beauty - massive hi-res maps dominating with the surrounding functions putting every other in-car display I've seen to shame. I suspect it wouldn't take too many airport runs to drain the batteries, but I would imagine that these guys have factored that in - if the tech is good enough, and cheap enough, to be feasible as a full-time taxi then I would say the traditional fleet of Mercs/Passats is living on borrowed time.
That's only a view from the back seat - but if this is the future of transport, count me in.
Well airport taxi's spend most of the day sitting round in queues anyway so would have thought the taxi ranks probably have chargers.That's only a view from the back seat - but if this is the future of transport, count me in.
Also taxi use will very quickly throw up any shortcomings in EV's so it's an interesting scheme
Blaster72 said:
It doesn't pollute unless it leaks out
er, i think you'll find it does, and massively:
See all that ^^^^ sh*t coming out the funnel?? (or tailpipe, or powerstation (oil is pumped down pipelines, generally by electric motors, powered by powerstations, but often from diesel gensets.....)
Max_Torque said:
Blaster72 said:
It doesn't pollute unless it leaks out
er, i think you'll find it does, and massively:See all that ^^^^ sh*t coming out the funnel?? (or tailpipe, or powerstation (oil is pumped down pipelines, generally by electric motors, powered by powerstations, but often from diesel gensets.....)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oil_spills
deckster said:
Apropos of nothing in particular, I've just got back from a trip to Stockholm and was surprised at the number of Teslas there were in the taxi fleets - I presume they have good subsidies/tax breaks over there. Riding in the back of a Model S was a total delight: spacious, comfy, smooth. The quality of everything was top notch, and the huge central screen was a thing of beauty - massive hi-res maps dominating with the surrounding functions putting every other in-car display I've seen to shame. I suspect it wouldn't take too many airport runs to drain the batteries, but I would imagine that these guys have factored that in - if the tech is good enough, and cheap enough, to be feasible as a full-time taxi then I would say the traditional fleet of Mercs/Passats is living on borrowed time.
That's only a view from the back seat - but if this is the future of transport, count me in.
Loads with us in Norway, but the backlash is starting. EV's are road tax free, toll free (big cost), free tunnels, free charging and free ferries across Norway which is a huge transport network.That's only a view from the back seat - but if this is the future of transport, count me in.
However, the 'free' legislation was written to encourage people to buy little electric noddy-cars, not luxury barges. Some people are not happy with Teslas as it's 'not fair'.
98elise said:
I would buy an EV as a family car even if the cost the same to run as an ICE. Why wouldn't I want a simple powerful efficient car?
Because the range is poor, why would you pay the same for a car that could do less. You wouldn't dream of buying a diesel car that could only 200 miles at most on a tank and required you to stop for half an hour to fill up.Still, there's plenty of off peak power to charge - if you want to wait until the middle of the night to fill up.
Seems to me many are blinkered to the real problems of scaling up EV useage and just point to all the blatantly obvious bad parts of fossil fuel use without coming up with an real practical solutions.
Solar panels in the Arabian deserts with power lines to the UK is just ridiculous, yet some above think its a practical solution just because transmission losses are only 10% or so.
If that was the case, why hasn't construction started already to rid us of those nasty coal, oil and Nuclear power stations?
I ask again, where realistically (ie not fantasy) is all this extra electricity going to come from??
Blaster72 said:
Because the range is poor, why would you pay the same for a car that could do less. You wouldn't dream of buying a diesel car that could only 200 miles at most on a tank and required you to stop for half an hour to fill up.
Still, there's plenty of off peak power to charge - if you want to wait until the middle of the night to fill up.
Seems to me many are blinkered to the real problems of scaling up EV useage and just point to all the blatantly obvious bad parts of fossil fuel use without coming up with an real practical solutions.
Solar panels in the Arabian deserts with power lines to the UK is just ridiculous, yet some above think its a practical solution just because transmission losses are only 10% or so.
If that was the case, why hasn't construction started already to rid us of those nasty coal, oil and Nuclear power stations?
I ask again, where realistically (ie not fantasy) is all this extra electricity going to come from??
Sadly plenty of people I suspect think like you. Because petrol just 'appears' in a forecourt they forget all the effort (and energy) used to extract/refined it.Still, there's plenty of off peak power to charge - if you want to wait until the middle of the night to fill up.
Seems to me many are blinkered to the real problems of scaling up EV useage and just point to all the blatantly obvious bad parts of fossil fuel use without coming up with an real practical solutions.
Solar panels in the Arabian deserts with power lines to the UK is just ridiculous, yet some above think its a practical solution just because transmission losses are only 10% or so.
If that was the case, why hasn't construction started already to rid us of those nasty coal, oil and Nuclear power stations?
I ask again, where realistically (ie not fantasy) is all this extra electricity going to come from??
But don't worry, you can carry on been concerned and leave us crazies to get on with enjoying EVs.....After all someone has to keep paying fuel duty and fund the EV grant
.Edited by gangzoom on Friday 29th April 19:21
There is another aspect of the EV and the effect on the national grid which I haven't seen mentioned here yet. I have been reading about the Smart Grid initiative and part of this involves using EVs as local sources of energy to smooth out demand during peak loads.
The thinking is that cars left on charge during the day could be used to put electricity back into the grid for short periods, with the assumption that there will still be sufficient time to charge the battery before the car is needed (maybe whilst the driver is at work). Similarly each evening when many EVs will be plugged in, they can be used to cover some of the spike in demand from the kettles during the coronation street ad break, and they will still be fully charged overnight.
I understand Tesla have been looking into this but it is still some way off. Drivers would probably need to be incentivised to permit this but it could be achieved by signing up for a subsidised charger with the 2 way technology in it.
The thinking is that cars left on charge during the day could be used to put electricity back into the grid for short periods, with the assumption that there will still be sufficient time to charge the battery before the car is needed (maybe whilst the driver is at work). Similarly each evening when many EVs will be plugged in, they can be used to cover some of the spike in demand from the kettles during the coronation street ad break, and they will still be fully charged overnight.
I understand Tesla have been looking into this but it is still some way off. Drivers would probably need to be incentivised to permit this but it could be achieved by signing up for a subsidised charger with the 2 way technology in it.
gangzoom said:
Sadly plenty of people I suspect think like you. Because petrol just 'appears' in a forecourt they forget all the effort (and energy) used to extract/refined it.
But don't worry, you can carry on been concerned and leave us crazies to get on with enjoying EVs.....After all someone has to keep paying fuel duty and fund the EV grant.
Again totally missing the point, I'm very aware of how much effort, cost, pollution goes into that liquid gold that comes out of the pumps. But don't worry, you can carry on been concerned and leave us crazies to get on with enjoying EVs.....After all someone has to keep paying fuel duty and fund the EV grant
.Edited by gangzoom on Friday 29th April 19:21
It's the EV lot who seems to be missing the point that scaling up EV use would require a similar massive scale infrastructure and all the associated problems and costs. You go and enjoy the earlier adopter perks, as I clearly mentioned a few posts above you are doing well to benefit from those.
If someone would be kind enough to stop turning the argument back onto all that is (blatantly obviously) bad about fossil fuel use and explain to me where all this extra electicity will come from if you scale EV use to the same as current ICE use. Ta very much
Blaster72 said:
If someone would be kind enough to stop turning the argument back onto all that is (blatantly obviously) bad about fossil fuel use and explain to me where all this extra electicity will come from if you scale EV use to the same as current ICE use. Ta very much
Wrong question. If you're driving an EV, then you're not driving a ICE, and therefore the energy that you used to power the ICE can be used to generate the electricity to drive the EV. At worst, it's a zero sum game (in fact it will be better than that, as the end-to-end losses are lower for EVs).The real question is distribution, which is far harder to solve.
Blaster72 said:
98elise said:
I would buy an EV as a family car even if the cost the same to run as an ICE. Why wouldn't I want a simple powerful efficient car?
Because the range is poor, why would you pay the same for a car that could do less. You wouldn't dream of buying a diesel car that could only 200 miles at most on a tank and required you to stop for half an hour to fill up.Still, there's plenty of off peak power to charge - if you want to wait until the middle of the night to fill up.
Seems to me many are blinkered to the real problems of scaling up EV useage and just point to all the blatantly obvious bad parts of fossil fuel use without coming up with an real practical solutions.
Solar panels in the Arabian deserts with power lines to the UK is just ridiculous, yet some above think its a practical solution just because transmission losses are only 10% or so.
If that was the case, why hasn't construction started already to rid us of those nasty coal, oil and Nuclear power stations?
I ask again, where realistically (ie not fantasy) is all this extra electricity going to come from??
When you ask where the extra power is coming from do you mean green replacment, or just additional energy? If its just energy then we have enough already. If we needed to go fully green then a domestic sized solar PV will provide enough energy of an average driver.
jshell said:
Mr Will said:
He wants to compete with Shell, BP, Exxon Mobil and Total.
No, he really doesn't. That's rubbish.98elise said:
If we needed to go fully green then a domestic sized solar PV will provide enough energy of an average driver.
That may be true during the summer months ( assuming the car is charged during the day, or a suitable storage system is used) but my experience is that a domestic sized solar PV in the UK will not provide enough energy for an average driver during the winter months.Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff