OT: Tesla car

[graddawg]

If some one cares, here is the actual data per state.

https://www.chooseenergy.com/data-center/electricity-sources-by-state/

I'm no expert on the subject, but with the power plant at Pickwick Dam feeding into the TVA grid, and TVA providing electricity to NE Mississippi, I'm not sure how we can be a "0.0" on hydro. What am I missing?

 

[johnson86-1]

That is a long way to say you typed something stupid and you're sorry. It's not that big of a deal. You just missed the entire content of the post in a rush to be snarky. It happens.

I don't think anybody that understood your first post thinks anything in this latest post is responsive to Go Budaw's post or mine. But on the off hand chance you are actually fooling yourself:

Again, the OP lives in the TVA area, so 54% of his power is made without making any CO2.So yeah, an electric car does put out 4x less co2 (or is 4x more efficient).

Niether I nor Go Budaw made any comment about the source of power in TVA's area. He just made a point taking it as a given that 68% of the electricity comes from fossil fuels.

But you are too obtuse, to see that, as usual.

Tesla says their motors are 97% efficient.

I think you're confusing their claimed efficiency of their inverter with their claimed efficiency of their motor.

And again only 46% of the electrons are made with CO2 sources vs 100% for the ICE. So redo your math with only 46% of the power making CO2.

If you want to redo the math for a different scenario we weren't discussing, you can do that. It's not that hard.

Also, do your back of the envelope math to see how many KW of power are in your 15 gallon gas tank. see what factor it is higher than the 100kw battery in the OP Model S 100D

Hint: it's about 5x.. 15 gallons of gasoline is ~500 kwh

That's not exactly responsive to anything we were talking about, but it would be a pretty useful comparison because it would get you closer to a dollar to dollar comparison, which is good, because usually if you can get an all in number (not just for fuel but for the equipment) that will usually give you a rough indicator as to which option actually uses less resources. From that point, you just have to account for government subsidies (reasonably easy to do and agree upon), any positive or negative externalities (which is hard to agree upon), potential impacse from things like path dependency (e.g., maybe ICE is cheaper now because we've already built out the gasoline distribution system, but once you're not having to pay for a lot of new infrastructure, ICE will be more expensive), non-price benefits (e.g., moving pollution out of city streets to power plants that put the pollution high in the air and are probably better controlled), etc., etc. But still, starting with price is still probably more informative than just comparing energy content of a particular amount of fossil fuel to work produced.

 

[DreadNought.sixpack]

I figured this would be the place to ask. Anyone know where I can get a DEF deleted on a Duramax 6.6L diesel?

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

delete

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

Technological improvement is almost always a good thing. One thing I would like to see in the EV push is a change in insurance laws. I would like the government to make a law that each person can own a second "commuter" car on their same insurance bill. You can only drive one car at a time. This commuter car would be something that gets 50+ (or some reasonable number) mpg. I would own and drive a commuter car for around town driving if I could eliminate having to have a whole other insurance bill. There are times that I need my truck. Of course the insurance could be based on the more expensive vehicle and they would have to write the law smartly so the insurance companies can't just bump up all prices across the board.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

You can get reduced policies for cars you drive low miles.

 

[SheltonChoked]

That is a long way to say you typed something stupid and you're sorry. It's not that big of a deal. You just missed the entire content of the post in a rush to be snarky. It happens.

I don't think anybody that understood your first post thinks anything in this latest post is responsive to Go Budaw's post or mine. But on the off hand chance you are actually fooling yourself:

Niether I nor Go Budaw made any comment about the source of power in TVA's area. He just made a point taking it as a given that 68% of the electricity comes from fossil fuels.

I think you're confusing their claimed efficiency of their inverter with their claimed efficiency of their motor.

If you want to redo the math for a different scenario we weren't discussing, you can do that. It's not that hard.

That's not exactly responsive to anything we were talking about, but it would be a pretty useful comparison because it would get you closer to a dollar to dollar comparison, which is good, because usually if you can get an all in number (not just for fuel but for the equipment) that will usually give you a rough indicator as to which option actually uses less resources. From that point, you just have to account for government subsidies (reasonably easy to do and agree upon), any positive or negative externalities (which is hard to agree upon), potential impacse from things like path dependency (e.g., maybe ICE is cheaper now because we've already built out the gasoline distribution system, but once you're not having to pay for a lot of new infrastructure, ICE will be more expensive), non-price benefits (e.g., moving pollution out of city streets to power plants that put the pollution high in the air and are probably better controlled), etc., etc. But still, starting with price is still probably more informative than just comparing energy content of a particular amount of fossil fuel to work produced.

MAke no mistake, I was not apologizing for "being wrong" Nor was I the one that typed "something stupid".

That was some jerk using your login that Said budlaw was ignoring the effects of making electricity. Same jerk then assumed all power make is from fossil fuels, and then show the math that it was only 2x as efficient and not 4x. Whenreal numbers are fossil fuels only make up 40 to 60% of the electricity. Which means his 4x number was spot on.

But thanks for playing.

Make sure you include the fossil fuel industry subsidies when you do your $ for $ comparison.

 

[johnson86-1]

MAke no mistake, I was not apologizing for "being wrong"

I was pointing out what you should be doing. I did not think you were apologizing.

Nor was I the one that typed "something stupid".

Budaw specifically referenced the efficiency of ICE and you snarkily responded to that we weren't considering the efficiency of ICE. I think that qualifies as typing something stupid? If I misread a post or miss the point of a post and type something that makes me look like a jackass, when I realize it, I would describe that as typing something stupid. Is there a phrase that you think more fairly describes typing something that makes you look like a jackass?

That was some jerk using your login that Said budlaw was ignoring the effects of making electricity. Same jerk then assumed all power make is from fossil fuels, and then show the math that it was only 2x as efficient and not 4x. Whenreal numbers are fossil fuels only make up 40 to 60% of the electricity. Which means his 4x number was spot on.

But thanks for playing.

Man, you got me. If only I had said something like:

IF you drop that down to 68% of the fuel coming from natural gas cc, then you still don't get more than 5 times of work for the same amount of fossil fuel.

to make account for the fact that Go Budaw's post was taking as a given that not all the electricity was coming from fossil fuels. Of course, even then, that would only help if Go BUdaw had said something like:

68% of electricity comes from fossil fuels as a singular statement completely ignores the fact that electric cars are four times more efficient at converting energy than ICE cars. So with that 68% of electricity from fossil fuels, you do the same work with 17% fossil fuels in an all-electric as you would with 90% fossil fuels in an ICE car. That’s a hell of a footprint reduction, even if its not a total elimination of fossil fuel usage.

If only...But even if we had typed something like that, you'd have to have the ability to scroll up the page to prove that we included that in our posts. ANd what kind of magical technology would that take. If you could do that, people could read before posting and just avoid the whole blow up.

Make sure you include the fossil fuel industry subsidies when you do your $ for $ comparison.

I think those would be included under government subsidies. Although I was wrong to say those would be easy to agree upon because lots of people like to treat general tax treatments as subsidies when applied to fossil fuel extraction or refining, to value things like accelerated depreciation as the value of the depreciation rather than the time value of taking the depreciation sooner rather than later, or even try to allocate a significant part of the defense budget to fossil fuel production because they think that's really what drives our defense policy.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

Interesting note: I plan to get the cybertruck but I’ve been concerned about towing stuff to areas superchargers don’t exist. Basically most of Arkansas outside of Little Rock and Bentonville. But just realized Tesla is putting in a super charger where I would normally exit I-40 in Brinkley. Nice timing

 

[msstatelp1]

In the 1780s no one thought that new fangled steamship would ever replace the Clipper ship and other sailing ships of the day.

In the 1890s everyone laughed at the thought that the new fangled automobile would ever replace the horse.

In the 1910s any idea that anything would replace the Model T was considered radical.

In 2021 the possibility that battery power may replace the ICE is hard to accept but very possible.

 

[SheltonChoked]

I was pointing out what you should be doing. I did not think you were apologizing.


Budaw specifically referenced the efficiency of ICE and you snarkily responded to that we weren't considering the efficiency of ICE. I think that qualifies as typing something stupid? If I misread a post or miss the point of a post and type something that makes me look like a jackass, when I realize it, I would describe that as typing something stupid. Is there a phrase that you think more fairly describes typing something that makes you look like a jackass?




Man, you got me. If only I had said something like:

to make account for the fact that Go Budaw's post was taking as a given that not all the electricity was coming from fossil fuels. Of course, even then, that would only help if Go BUdaw had said something like:


If only...But even if we had typed something like that, you'd have to have the ability to scroll up the page to prove that we included that in our posts. ANd what kind of magical technology would that take. If you could do that, people could read before posting and just avoid the whole blow up.





I think those would be included under government subsidies. Although I was wrong to say those would be easy to agree upon because lots of people like to treat general tax treatments as subsidies when applied to fossil fuel extraction or refining, to value things like accelerated depreciation as the value of the depreciation rather than the time value of taking the depreciation sooner rather than later, or even try to allocate a significant part of the defense budget to fossil fuel production because they think that's really what drives our defense policy.

When I want to do something stupid, I'll listen to what you have to say.

Budlaw is still correct Per DOE, real world ICE efficiency is 12-20%. Real world EV efficiencies are 80%.( and teslas are more efficient that other EV's 90-94%) 12 time 4 is less than 80. 20 times 4 is 80.

So your spouting off about fossil fuel generating efficiencies means nothing.

See you did as you always did and moved the goalposts when you were wrong. When the number got to 4x the efficiencies when you added real world generation, even with your Atkinson cycle fuel efficiencies, you changed his post from 4x to 5x.

You should have DS look and see who the Jerk is posting from your account.

 

[SheltonChoked]

I think there is going to be some pain for a few years as vehicle demand outpaces infrastructure (public superchargers for example.) I still feel like we are in the early adoption stage (42" plasma TV 480p cost $7k in 2003.... Now a 43" LED 4k costs $235.) Now that GM, Ford

It's going to be amazing what EV's can do in 10 years. I think big auto getting involved is going to really drive down price points. It will be hard to not justify buying EV with 4-500 mile range from GM for the same price as the same model in ICE.

Bloomburg says the magic number for battery cost is $101/kWh. And they expect that by 2023. With a price of half that by 2030.

Building cars with so few moving parts is a game changer. Only the Rotor and the bearings are moving.

I'm interested in how fast TVA et,el. will build the supercharger network, and how they will pick locations. Having a High Voltage power charger on your block will draw more traffic.

 

[SheltonChoked]

I figured this would be the place to ask. Anyone know where I can get a DEF deleted on a Duramax 6.6L diesel?

Ask volkswagen, they were pretty good at making it pass emissions but driving with a different setup otherwise.

 

[johnson86-1]

When I want to do something stupid, I'll listen to what you have to say.

Budlaw is still correct Per DOE, real world ICE efficiency is 12-20%. Real world EV efficiencies are 80%.( and teslas are more efficient that other EV's 90-94%) 12 time 4 is less than 80. 20 times 4 is 80.


So your spouting off about fossil fuel generating efficiencies means nothing.

See you did as you always did and moved the goalposts when you were wrong. When the number got to 4x the efficiencies when you added real world generation, even with your Atkinson cycle fuel efficiencies, you changed his post from 4x to 5x.

You should have DS look and see who the Jerk is posting from your account.

I honestly can't tell if you just feel stupid and so you are just saying stuff you know is wrong to try to distract from the fact that you typed something stupid (if so, just stop digging), or if your brain really tricks yourself into being stupid to protect yourself from the psychic harm of realizing you said something stupid. Just in case it's the latter, we'll break it down so you can understand it even while your brain is playing psychological tricks on you. Go Budaw said:

So with that 68% of electricity from fossil fuels, you do the same work with 17% fossil fuels in an all-electric as you would with 90% fossil fuels in an ICE car.

So just to start off addressing some of your mental gymnastics:
Go Budaw clearly talked about how far you get for a particular amount of fossil fuels. So your statement that "fossil fuel generating efficiencies mean nothing" is horseshit. Which of course you (subconsciously or consciously) know, as you brought in the efficiencies of combined cycle combustion turbines being at 60%. That's the number I used when I put down some of the back of the math envelope. That's on the high end of efficiencies for combined cycle and for fossil fuel generation in general, but combined cycle is a decent enough stand in.


You also make a nice straw man argument about electric motors being four times as efficient as ICE. I never disputed that. I explicitly stated:

Say Tesla engine is 90% efficient and Ice is 30% (using higher end ranges for both). That's three times more efficient, but that doesn't account for the fact that if it was 100% fueld by CC natural gas, then you first have a loss of 60%, then you have 90% of that, so you are really at 54% efficiency when you stack converting electric to movement on top of converting fossil fuels to electricity. So you're just under twice as efficient. If you use 90% (tesla) and 22.25% (ICE), then you're right at twice as efficient. IF you drop that down to 68% of the fuel coming from natural gas cc, then you still don't get more than 5 times of work for the same amount of fossil fuel.

Note that 90% (which is what Tesla claims it's real world efficiency is; https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a34046953/tesla-range-strategy-details/) is just over 4 times 22.25%. I wasn't picking the 22.5% to argue over what the right number is in the range of claimed ice efficiency. I was matching his 4 times as efficient claim because I wasn't trying to nitpick over what the precise number is. His 4 times number it seemed in line with what I've always heard.

What I did dispute was that you get 5 times as far for the same amount of fossil fuel. Which I did because Go Budaw said you get the same distance off of the 17% of fossil fuel used to power a electric car as you do with 90% of fossil fuels in an ICE (presumably counting 10% as ethanol). Which as I said, if you are comparing it to how much work they get out of fossil fuels, it looked like he was just taking the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels by percentage (although I think gasoline is 10% ethanol by volume, not energy content), and then using a 4 times multiplier based on the efficiency of electric motors compared to ICE without accounting for the losses in energy converting fossil fuel to electricity. So no, nobody moved the goal post from 4x to 5x. You can actually read his post to see what is claimed before you type a response next time.

ETA: Also nice how you talk about using real numbers and just don't acknowledge that your 97% number for TESLA can't be backed up.

 

[Bulldog Bruce]

I know that. I want no rate. The mileage would be truly split between the two vehicles in my scenario. The one vehicle would be used to go to and from work each day and some errands around town. The other would be used to tow the boat, going to places where you need more carry volume, long road trips, etc. You would use one vehicle during the week and the other during the weekend basically.

So if the rate for vehicle one is $100 a month and vehicle two is $75. The $100 should cover both vehicles. So effectively cover the driver for their most costly vehicle.

 

[patdog]

Insurance companies already pretty much do that by charging rates based on total miles per year and commuting miles per day on each vehicle.

 

[johnson86-1]

Ive seen this sort of mentality in tweets too, but its just a really dumb way to look at consumerism. If you invest money, there is a pretty 17ing good chance you will have more of it after 10 years compared to if you spend that money on a depreciating product.
Thats just common sense and its hardly some groundbreaking thought.

If you spend that money on stock, then you dont have it to buy a damn car. Now the argument can be made that you should spend $50K on a car and invest the other $50K and at that point, you are just using hindsight to tell people where to spend their money. Maybe that person wants to enjoy their time on this earth and like being an early adopter of tech.
Maybe someone who can afford a $100K car has other cash on hand to invest in Tesla stock and so they can have their cake and eat it too.


The obvious end result of this sort approach to spending and investment if asset growth is the only motivator is that you buy cheap **** and invest everything else. There are some people who do this, but it isnt a popular lifestyle for a reason.

I don't think it's a dumb way to look at consumerism in general. Thinking about what money you spend now could mean in 5, 10, 20 years I think is useful in balancing spending and investing. I think it's stupid and possibly counterproductive to talk about what you would have if you had invested it in one of the (or just the?) best performing stocks over the last ten years. If you could reliably pick the best performing stock for the next ten years, you wouldn't have to worry about what you're spending now. I think it's reasonable to think about what a $30k car and $70k in an S&P Index fund would likely be in ten years compared to a $100k car.

 

[mstateglfr]

I don't think it's a dumb way to look at consumerism in general. Thinking about what money you spend now could mean in 5, 10, 20 years I think is useful in balancing spending and investing. I think it's stupid and possibly counterproductive to talk about what you would have if you had invested it in one of the (or just the?) best performing stocks over the last ten years. If you could reliably pick the best performing stock for the next ten years, you wouldn't have to worry about what you're spending now. I think it's reasonable to think about what a $30k car and $70k in an S&P Index fund would likely be in ten years compared to a $100k car.

Sure, I can get on board with this.
Its the benefit of hindsight that makes the point that the money should have been invested so absurd.

Counter example to the dumb Tesla claim- If I bought $1500 in Gateway stock back in 2000 instead of my desktop, I would have done even less schoolwork than I actually did and I would have $0 in stock worth since the company folded a handful of years later after the stock was trading for pennies.

I do agree that in general, looking at what you have available to spend and figuring out a healthy mix of consumer purchases and investing is smart.

 

[BlueRidgeMtns]

I got cut off by a jackass in a Tesla SUV yesterday... so there's that.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

I know that. I want no rate. The mileage would be truly split between the two vehicles in my scenario. The one vehicle would be used to go to and from work each day and some errands around town. The other would be used to tow the boat, going to places where you need more carry volume, long road trips, etc. You would use one vehicle during the week and the other during the weekend basically.

So if the rate for vehicle one is $100 a month and vehicle two is $75. The $100 should cover both vehicles. So effectively cover the driver for their most costly vehicle.

Your best bet is too look at pay per mile or pay as you go. I looked at it for my wife last year since she started working from home, but it honestly didn't save enough money to justify the hassle.

The idea of paying a rate based on the driver leaves out the value of the vehicle, the safety features of the vehicle, and the fact that you still want to cover the vehicle with comprehensive coverage for damage that occurs when it's parked.

I have had 3 insurance claims on my vehicles in the last 20 years. They were parked all 3 times. Stolen wheels and 2 massive hail damage claims.

I like where your head is because it's seems doable, but insurance is way to regulated by states to figure your plan out in our lifetimes.

 

[Drebin]

Sure, our grid is mostly powered by fossil fuels. For now.

I hate to break it to you, but this ain't changing anytime soon.

GM's aspirational goals to cease production of vehicles with gasoline engines isn't happening on their announced timeline, either.

 

[SheltonChoked]

I honestly can't tell if you just feel stupid and so you are just saying stuff you know is wrong to try to distract from the fact that you typed something stupid (if so, just stop digging), or if your brain really tricks yourself into being stupid to protect yourself from the psychic harm of realizing you said something stupid. Just in case it's the latter, we'll break it down so you can understand it even while your brain is playing psychological tricks on you. Go Budaw said:



So just to start off addressing some of your mental gymnastics:
Go Budaw clearly talked about how far you get for a particular amount of fossil fuels. So your statement that "fossil fuel generating efficiencies mean nothing" is horseshit. Which of course you (subconsciously or consciously) know, as you brought in the efficiencies of combined cycle combustion turbines being at 60%. That's the number I used when I put down some of the back of the math envelope. That's on the high end of efficiencies for combined cycle and for fossil fuel generation in general, but combined cycle is a decent enough stand in.


You also make a nice straw man argument about electric motors being four times as efficient as ICE. I never disputed that. I explicitly stated:



Note that 90% (which is what Tesla claims it's real world efficiency is; https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a34046953/tesla-range-strategy-details/) is just over 4 times 22.25%. I wasn't picking the 22.5% to argue over what the right number is in the range of claimed ice efficiency. I was matching his 4 times as efficient claim because I wasn't trying to nitpick over what the precise number is. His 4 times number it seemed in line with what I've always heard.

What I did dispute was that you get 5 times as far for the same amount of fossil fuel. Which I did because Go Budaw said you get the same distance off of the 17% of fossil fuel used to power a electric car as you do with 90% of fossil fuels in an ICE (presumably counting 10% as ethanol). Which as I said, if you are comparing it to how much work they get out of fossil fuels, it looked like he was just taking the amount of energy produced by fossil fuels by percentage (although I think gasoline is 10% ethanol by volume, not energy content), and then using a 4 times multiplier based on the efficiency of electric motors compared to ICE without accounting for the losses in energy converting fossil fuel to electricity. So no, nobody moved the goal post from 4x to 5x. You can actually read his post to see what is claimed before you type a response next time.

ETA: Also nice how you talk about using real numbers and just don't acknowledge that your 97% number for TESLA can't be backed up.

I'll admit I was wrong about the tesla 97%, it's 90 to 94%.

And 4x is what budlaw said, That you thought you were being cute with " well you have to correct for the power generation, harrump harrump".

And like i said ICE cars are down to 12% efficent, which supports Budlaw AGAIN.

You were trying to be a smartass and I am trolling you. Funny you are too dumb to notice. as usual.

 

[SheltonChoked]

I know that. I want no rate. The mileage would be truly split between the two vehicles in my scenario. The one vehicle would be used to go to and from work each day and some errands around town. The other would be used to tow the boat, going to places where you need more carry volume, long road trips, etc. You would use one vehicle during the week and the other during the weekend basically.

So if the rate for vehicle one is $100 a month and vehicle two is $75. The $100 should cover both vehicles. So effectively cover the driver for their most costly vehicle.

You might be able to get that with the Nanny monitoring device on all the cars so they can tell how safe a driver you are. But with an electric, the acceleration is so fun, you probably would get dinged for too many quick starts.

 

[SheltonChoked]

I hate to break it to you, but this ain't changing anytime soon.

GM's aspirational goals to cease production of vehicles with gasoline engines isn't happening on their announced timeline, either.

Define soon.

And when batteries get to lower than $100/kWh, ICE cars will be more expensive.

 

[PhredPhantom]

Finally took the plunge …

I bought a 2017 Tesla Model S P100D from a private owner in Texas. I drove it back from Houston and have had it for about a week now.

It has the Enhanced Autopilot but not FSD. Has about 28K miles. Since it’s a 2017, it has free supercharging for the life of the car as well as free Internet connectivity.

If I could post a picture from my phone, I’d show you what it looks like.

So far I love it.

It has the normal 110v charger for home and also has a 240v-50amp plug that gives me about 23mph charging at home. As an added bonus, the seller included a brand new wall charger he has bought but not installed that uses a 60amp circuit to charge even a little faster. This is a $500 charger still in the box with the seal never having been broken.

I think I’m going to really enjoy this car. When I get on my laptop later I’ll post a picture or two.

Again, thank you to all those who gave relevant advice and tips.

 

[Thirty-Two Dive]

Oh, you'll love it. No car is perfect. But if you are of the segment that Tesla checks all the boxes, you'll probably never go back to "regular" cars. And the best part, is that in a few years, when the other manufactures close the gap (especially with charging infrastructure), you'll have a lot more choices for your next car.

 

[SheltonChoked]

I bought a 2017 Tesla Model S P100D from a private owner in Texas. I drove it back from Houston and have had it for about a week now.

It has the Enhanced Autopilot but not FSD. Has about 28K miles. Since it’s a 2017, it has free supercharging for the life of the car as well as free Internet connectivity.

If I could post a picture from my phone, I’d show you what it looks like.

So far I love it.

It has the normal 110v charger for home and also has a 240v-50amp plug that gives me about 23mph charging at home. As an added bonus, the seller included a brand new wall charger he has bought but not installed that uses a 60amp circuit to charge even a little faster. This is a $500 charger still in the box with the seal never having been broken.

I think I’m going to really enjoy this car. When I get on my laptop later I’ll post a picture or two.

Again, thank you to all those who gave relevant advice and tips.

So how many times have you floored it from a stop so far? The S100D will MOVE...