Tesla Model 3 revealed
Discussion
98elise said:
Could you put some figures to all this scaling thats needed.
An average driver needs about 7kWh per day, and producing a gallon of petrol uses about 6kWh of electrical energy before you even move a single mile.
This is very, very frustrating. An average driver needs about 7kWh per day, and producing a gallon of petrol uses about 6kWh of electrical energy before you even move a single mile.
Firstly, a gallon of petrol will take you (in a reasonably efficient ICE car) 40 miles. 6kWh of electricity will take you (in a reasonably efficient EV) 19 miles. So switching to EVs halves the distance you get out of 6kWh of energy.
Secondly, that 6kWh estimate is derived from all the energy used to deliver fuel - the transport, the refinery and so on. A good chunk of that is not 'free electricity', but energy from burning other fossil fuels (tankers run on oil, not electricity). A lot of it is not even energy expended in this country. So by switching from petrol, you don't free up 6kWh of UK electricity generation.
Taking reasonably comparative figures I think a petrol ICE powered car probably requires somewhere between a quarter and a sixth of the grid capacity of an EV.
It's a bit of a moot point anyway; there's no way EV usage is going to ramp up fast enough to push off-peak usage even close to day-time usage. We need to build power stations to deal with the projected peak evening loads anyway; 10% of cars going electric over the next fifteen to twenty years doing 90% of their charging off-peak will be utterly insignificant in terms of the challenge the grid is facing.
It's a bit of a moot point anyway; there's no way EV usage is going to ramp up fast enough to push off-peak usage even close to day-time usage. We need to build power stations to deal with the projected peak evening loads anyway; 10% of cars going electric over the next fifteen to twenty years doing 90% of their charging off-peak will be utterly insignificant in terms of the challenge the grid is facing.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 30th April 13:41
Tuna said:
98elise said:
Could you put some figures to all this scaling thats needed.
An average driver needs about 7kWh per day, and producing a gallon of petrol uses about 6kWh of electrical energy before you even move a single mile.
This is very, very frustrating. An average driver needs about 7kWh per day, and producing a gallon of petrol uses about 6kWh of electrical energy before you even move a single mile.
Firstly, a gallon of petrol will take you (in a reasonably efficient ICE car) 40 miles. 6kWh of electricity will take you (in a reasonably efficient EV) 19 miles. So switching to EVs halves the distance you get out of 6kWh of energy.
Secondly, that 6kWh estimate is derived from all the energy used to deliver fuel - the transport, the refinery and so on. A good chunk of that is not 'free electricity', but energy from burning other fossil fuels (tankers run on oil, not electricity). A lot of it is not even energy expended in this country. So by switching from petrol, you don't free up 6kWh of UK electricity generation.
IIRC the 6kWh figure is based on refinery consuption only, not transport.
k-ink said:
Those sales figures look huge. Perhaps this is the turning point where spotting a Tesla switches from a rarity to a common occurrence. Seeing that many electric vehicles on the road may set people off trying to catch up with the neighbours and accelerate sales further.
To put it in context those deposits (not firm commitments to buy, as has been pointed out) are estimated to take Tesla three years to deliver when they finally start production. The estimate of UK deposit holders is about equivalent to 2 days of ICE sales in this country.98elise said:
You're missing the fact that a gallon of fuel about 30kWh of energy that the ICE consumes.
How does that matter? It means ICE cars can become a lot more efficient (and increasingly, they are - that 40 mpg figure I used is pretty conservative if you want an energy efficient ICE vehicle), but it's not as if that is otherwise available as electrical energy. If you don't burn the fuel, the energy is not there to use. The fact is that petrol is an incredibly energy dense way of storing and transporting power. That number confirms it, but is irrelevant when comparing EVs to ICE - apart from pointing out that two gallons of fuel stores about the same energy as the 1 ton battery in an EV.Tuna said:
98elise said:
You're missing the fact that a gallon of fuel about 30kWh of energy that the ICE consumes.
How does that matter? It means ICE cars can become a lot more efficient (and increasingly, they are - that 40 mpg figure I used is pretty conservative if you want an energy efficient ICE vehicle), but it's not as if that is otherwise available as electrical energy. If you don't burn the fuel, the energy is not there to use. The fact is that petrol is an incredibly energy dense way of storing and transporting power. That number confirms it, but is irrelevant when comparing EVs to ICE - apart from pointing out that two gallons of fuel stores about the same energy as the 1 ton battery in an EV.98elise said:
George111 said:
k-ink said:
Those sales figures look huge. Perhaps this is the turning point where spotting a Tesla switches from a rarity to a common occurrence. Seeing that many electric vehicles on the road may set people off trying to catch up with the neighbours and accelerate sales further.
It's not a sales figure, it's an expression of interest figure with a 100% refundable deposit so zero commitment. Many of them will just be hoping to get a freebie drive or some goodies in the post. Tesla are not even making them yet, don't have a manufacturing date nor are there enough chargers in the UK to make it feasible for anybody but the dedicated early adopters/tech heads to buy in the quantities suggested.This thread is heading into fantasy land, all the serious issues are being dismissed with statements akin to "it'll all be OK in the end" and "if we build it they will come" mentality. Life and human nature isn't like that and we're not going to see thousands of Model 3s all over the place any time soon.
As for keeping up with the neighbours . . . I think range envy will become the dominant feeling as petrol and diesel cars head towards 70-80mpg with a range of 1000 miles
Not only that but oil prices will come lower than they are now and stay low whilst electricity prices rise as we turn more of the UK into a windmill and solar wasteland feeding the corporates who run them with huge subsidies, paid for by a growing number of elderly people who can least afford it.I'm surprised you think people won't change. 150 years ago the car hadn't been invented, and nor had the plane. If you wanted to travel you used a horse or your feet.
When I was a kid computers were the stuff of science fiction. Now I have around 6 computers in my livingroom alone.
People adapt and change all the time.
We're talking 20-40 years I'd guess.Computers are tiny and cheap, they're not a good model to use and neither is the introduction of cars 100 years ago, times are very different and requirements are tight these days.
Is it fair to compare the two technologies in this way though? I know electric motors have fundamentally been around for at least as long as ICE but the research and investment in petrol and diesel engines over the last century surely gives it a huge advantage.
Wouldn't it be more representative to be comparing today's electric cars with the ICE technology of the early-mid 20th century? How efficient was a typical car in the 1940s, say?
Wouldn't it be more representative to be comparing today's electric cars with the ICE technology of the early-mid 20th century? How efficient was a typical car in the 1940s, say?
Tuna said:
How does that matter? It means ICE cars can become a lot more efficient (and increasingly, they are - that 40 mpg figure I used is pretty conservative if you want an energy efficient ICE vehicle), but it's not as if that is otherwise available as electrical energy. If you don't burn the fuel, the energy is not there to use. The fact is that petrol is an incredibly energy dense way of storing and transporting power. That number confirms it, but is irrelevant when comparing EVs to ICE - apart from pointing out that two gallons of fuel stores about the same energy as the 1 ton battery in an EV.
The efficiency limit of a primary heat engine made of steel (or anything else of similar melting point) is about 40%. They aren't going to get that much more efficient until we start making them out of ceramics or something. kambites said:
Tuna said:
How does that matter? It means ICE cars can become a lot more efficient (and increasingly, they are - that 40 mpg figure I used is pretty conservative if you want an energy efficient ICE vehicle), but it's not as if that is otherwise available as electrical energy. If you don't burn the fuel, the energy is not there to use. The fact is that petrol is an incredibly energy dense way of storing and transporting power. That number confirms it, but is irrelevant when comparing EVs to ICE - apart from pointing out that two gallons of fuel stores about the same energy as the 1 ton battery in an EV.
The efficiency limit of a primary heat engine made of steel (or anything else of similar melting point) is about 40%. They aren't going to get that much more efficient until we start making them out of ceramics or something. Greater efficiency is all very commendable for the environment but in the long term will make no difference to individual ownership experience.
Why?
Because the government needs to maintain its huge tax take from motor transport. One way or another, either by taxing electricity used for charging, by increasing the annual road tax or by implementing road charges by the mile, owners will still face the same overall costs.
Why?
Because the government needs to maintain its huge tax take from motor transport. One way or another, either by taxing electricity used for charging, by increasing the annual road tax or by implementing road charges by the mile, owners will still face the same overall costs.
98elise said:
They are going to struggle to get much better efficiency. An ICE will turn that 30kWh into about 10kWh of actual work. Now look at an iCE in the 400-700bhp range and see how efficient that is.
All strong arguments for going down a hybrid route.The point though is that absolute efficiency is utterly irrelevant in the real world. Solar panels are very inefficient, but the cost of the energy they produce over their lifetime is not decided by their efficiency, but how much it takes to manufacture them. The same for fossil fuels. If it costs me 3p to go a mile, it doesn't matter if the engine is 5% efficient or 50% efficient.
Of course there are other considerations - emissions, available resources and so on. The problem is that most consumers buy based on (a) convenience and (b) cost. The whole point of Musk's work is to improve both of those in EVs until they outstrip ICE cars. After that happens if we can clean up our generation capacity, then we'll get the abstract benefit of a cleaner, more sustainable environment.
I believe we will get to that point, but for now the highly efficient EVs we're seeing have very little room to maneuver if the cost of electricity (and subsidies) changes much.
durbster said:
Wouldn't it be more representative to be comparing today's electric cars with the ICE technology of the early-mid 20th century? How efficient was a typical car in the 1940s, say?
Well, no because an EV is already 95% efficient (or whatever the number is) in turning electricity to movement. There's really not much room to improve.The question is whether our power stations can get much more efficient. This is a report into the cost of generation by different sources:
| Energy Source | Cost (£/MWh) |
|---|---|
| Natural gas turbine, no CO2 capture | 55 – 110 |
| Natural gas turbines with CO2 capture | 60 – 130 |
| Biomass | 60 – 120 |
| New nuclear(a) | 80 – 105 |
| Onshore wind | 80 – 110 |
| Coal with CO2 capture | 100 – 155 |
| Solar farms | 125 – 180 |
| Offshore wind | 150 – 210 |
| Tidal power | 155 – 390 |
See how much more expensive renewables are than fossil and even nuclear power? The challenge is to bring that cost down by a useful amount, and we've been working on that for longer than we've been working on the efficiency of ICE engines.
Edited by Tuna on Saturday 30th April 15:47
Tuna said:
Well, no because an EV is already 95% efficient (or whatever the number is) in turning electricity to movement. There's really not much room to improve.
The question is whether our power stations can get much more efficient. This is a report into the cost of generation by different sources:
See how much more expensive renewables are than fossil and even nuclear power? The challenge is to bring that cost down by a useful amount, and we've been working on that for longer than we've been working on the efficiency of ICE engines.
Hold on by your own table (please state the source), onshore wind is basically the same cost as nuclear. Difference been a wind farm is so much easier to install/maintain/run than a nuclear power station. Purely interms of human resources, how many people does it take to run a nuclear power station versus maintain a wind farm??The question is whether our power stations can get much more efficient. This is a report into the cost of generation by different sources:
| Energy Source | Cost (£/MWh) |
|---|---|
| Natural gas turbine, no CO2 capture | 55 – 110 |
| Natural gas turbines with CO2 capture | 60 – 130 |
| Biomass | 60 – 120 |
| New nuclear(a) | 80 – 105 |
| Onshore wind | 80 – 110 |
| Coal with CO2 capture | 100 – 155 |
| Solar farms | 125 – 180 |
| Offshore wind | 150 – 210 |
| Tidal power | 155 – 390 |
See how much more expensive renewables are than fossil and even nuclear power? The challenge is to bring that cost down by a useful amount, and we've been working on that for longer than we've been working on the efficiency of ICE engines.
Edited by Tuna on Saturday 30th April 15:47
Don't forget the UK tax payer is subsidising North sea oil production through tax breaks, and the latest nuclear power station is going owned by and build by foreign companies.
Why on earth people are so keen to keep the status quo I'm not sure about.
Tuna said:
See how much more expensive renewables are than fossil and even nuclear power? The challenge is to bring that cost down by a useful amount, and we've been working on that for longer than we've been working on the efficiency of ICE engines.
Also renewables are not useful without a method of storing the energy they harness so the above costs are missing the one thing which would make them genuinely useful. Add in the cost of this and your table becomes much more revealing - nuclear is the clear winner, not that it isn't already. Also when you show the amount of CO2 produced per KWh, nuclear is the clear winner beating even wind. George111 said:
Also renewables are not useful without a method of storing the energy they harness
Like the batteries in EVs, you mean? One good thing about EVs is that with the average driver only needing a couple of hours of charging a day, they can start up and shut down as supply and demand on the grid waxes and wanes. Renewables (with the exception of hydroelectrics) have their issues for domestic supply but for EVs they work fairly well.
There's no reason for our entire supply to be from a single source; realistically we need some nuclear (for low CO2 base supply when renewables can't provide), some gas (for quick start-up to meet spikes in demand, but there's no reason we can't have a significant chunk of the supply provided by wind as well.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 30th April 16:06
kambites said:
George111 said:
Also renewables are not useful without a method of storing the energy they harness
Like the batteries in EVs, you mean? One good thing about EVs is that with the average driver only needing a couple of hours of charging a day, they can start up and shut down as supply and demand on the grid waxes and wanes. Renewables (with the exception of hydroelectrics) have their issues for domestic supply but for EVs they work fairly well.
There's no reason for our entire supply to be from a single source; realistically we need some nuclear (for low CO2 base supply when renewables can't provide), some gas (for quick start-up to meet spikes in demand, but there's no reason we can't have a significant chunk of the supply provided by wind as well.
Edited by kambites on Saturday 30th April 16:06
Tesla has the right idea with the home storage system but it needs to be scaled up and fitted to each wind turbine, or a bunch of them - they can charge up when the wind blows and release it at peak time, reducing or eliminating the need for backup diesel generation and coal. We can then pay them for the energy the actually produce, not for being ready to, even when they don't make any.Germany currently has an issue with the wholesale electricity market being distorted at peak time by wind generation lowering the spot price, so the diesel/gas generators are reluctant to invest in capacity to meet peak need despite the fact the wind doesn't blow on the coldest days, so Germany needs the diesel/gas generators more than they do the wind. If wind energy was storable they could even out the spikes and get the capacity they need, probably with a greater wind component.
kambites said:
George111 said:
Also renewables are not useful without a method of storing the energy they harness
Like the batteries in EVs, you mean? Tuna said:
The problem is with renewables particularly in the winter you need to store energy for days or weeks, not hours. In the extreme case, solar in the UK is useless for three months of the year and marginal for six. You can't just count EVs as a storage medium for the national grid when they are already struggling with acceptable range per charge.
No-one is saying that the grid is going to go 100% solar any more than they're saying cars are all going to go EV.Gassing Station | EV and Alternative Fuels | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff