Tesla Model 3

[ocrenter]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

And Escoguy is right, quieter cars will result in rising real estate near thoroughfares.
We’ve seen this happen along rail lines already.[/quote]

I don’t know about that… Teslas traveling at 70 mph is still pretty loud.

You do eliminate cooridors of excess pollutants, that’s for sure.

[ocrenter]

[quote=afx114][quote=AN]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.

In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]

The argument ignores one of the main benefits of EV: it centralizes power generation at the plant. It is much easier to replace a single CO2 plant (or install carbon scrubbers/storage on them) than it is to replace millions of cars.

It also ignores the efficiency of EVs. Electric motors are about 80% efficient, compared to about 20% for combustion engines. So even if EVs are burning CO2 at the plant, they’re burning a *lot* less of it.

The equation only improves with time as CO2 plants get replaced with renewables. Meanwhile, those combustion engines will just continue to spew CO2.[/quote]

Did not know ICE is only 20% efficient.

So essentially we arelooking at the following:
–energy is used to explore and extract oil.
–energy is used to transport the oil.
–energy is used to refine the oil.
–energy is used to transport the refined product.
–refined final product is burnt at 20% efficiency.

Not to mention energy used to support authoritarian regimes with horrid human rights record to allow this extremely ineffective system to continue without disruption.

[svelte]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=FlyerInHi]

And Escoguy is right, quieter cars will result in rising real estate near thoroughfares.
We’ve seen this happen along rail lines already.[/quote]

I don’t know about that… Teslas traveling at 70 mph is still pretty loud.

You do eliminate cooridors of excess pollutants, that’s for sure.[/quote]

Agree. Most freeway and highway noise is tire related, not combustion engine related. With the possible exception of motorcycles and 18 wheelers.

Pollution on the other hand is a mixture of both exhaust (mostly) and rubber (every lil bit adds up!).

[an]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=Escoguy]Another side affect, as EVs have zero emissions and are quieter, prices around freeways may eventually rise as the spillover effects of cars is lessened. It may take more than a decade to see the full impact.

But in general we should all welcome having cleaner air.[/quote]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.

In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]

But you are not counting the 6 kWh of electricity and a gallon of water needed to refine a gallon of gasoline.

In the 1920’s it took energy from 1 barrel of oil to generate 100 barrels of oil.

Now that barrel yields 20 barrels, and for the tar sand, it is a 1:5 ratio.[/quote]are you trying to argue that coal is cleaner than gasoline?

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]AN as we know, things life are not holistic. We do things piece meal, one at a time, in a market, or policy approach.

Things are about momentum, gaining competitive advantage, image and optics, etc..

A city that is all electric auto will get world status. Research and development as well as corporate headquarters will follow. The end result will be more riches.

And Escoguy is right, quieter cars will result in rising real estate near thoroughfares.
We’ve seen this happen along rail lines already.[/quote]I care more about the actual CO2 emissions than optics. More people and more companies will give you China if you don’t start on a cleaner foundation to begin with. Thanks but no thanks.

As I’ve stated, freeway noise is mostly from tires, not engine. Which is why we call it freeway hum. The hum is from tires hitting pavement. Funny thing is that both tires and asphalt are by product of oil. How much more expensive would it be to maintain our roads if cost of oil is $200/barrel or banning oil all together.

I’m fully aware of the problem, but I feel the government’s solution is not holistic and more about optics. Same goes for others who support reducing CO2 but then live 30 miles away from work in a mcmansion. It just doesn’t make sense to me. After all biking and walking is much greener than EV.

[an]

You guys are also concentrating solely on cars. While completely ignoring planes, tractors, big rigs, busses, work trucks, etc. EV is not suitable for any of that. To truly solve this problem, we need to find the next fuel source that can completely replace oil and coal in all applications, not just cars. Unless you can prove to me that BEV can be applied to all of those usage, I would say it’s a stop gap solution. I want a real solution, not a stop gap solution. Especially when my tax $ is being spent to subsidize it.

Not to mention China is producing about 1/3 of the world pollution. Mainly because of their coal burning power plants. This is with their current growth of demand for electricity (their cars are still powered by gas). If they don’t drastically change their energy source but replace their gas powered car with EV, I can see the world’s total CO2 emission will be much worse than it is today without EV in China. This is why I’m pushing for a holistic and long term solution.

[an]

[quote=afx114][quote=AN]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.

In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]

The argument ignores one of the main benefits of EV: it centralizes power generation at the plant. It is much easier to replace a single CO2 plant (or install carbon scrubbers/storage on them) than it is to replace millions of cars.

It also ignores the efficiency of EVs. Electric motors are about 80% efficient, compared to about 20% for combustion engines. So even if EVs are burning CO2 at the plant, they’re burning a *lot* less of it.

The equation only improves with time as CO2 plants get replaced with renewables. Meanwhile, those combustion engines will just continue to spew CO2.[/quote]what does that having anything to do with the fact that the cleanliness of EV is heavily dependent on the cleanliness of the power source. IMHO, there’s no point pushing EV when if your goal is to reduce CO2, you should be pushing for elimination of coal.

BTW, the study disagree with you. That’s the whole point of the article that EV is dirtier that ICE today in Hong Kong and China. BTW, it takes a lot longer to replace working coal plant than you make it out to be. I’m not arguing that EV running solar is dirty. I’m simply stating that EV powered by dirty coal plant is worse than gasoline. So, if you’re serious about the imminent problem of CO2, we should concentrate more on replacing coal with natural gas, or nuclear, or solar or geothermal, instead of EV. Once we clean up the energy source, then I believe it’s a perfect time to push EV. I personally don’t believe we should push EV in area that is still powered by dirty coal. The study showed Hong Kong, a pretty wealthy nation, went for 53% coal powered to their goal of 50% coal powered by 2020. We’re talking about 3% reduction as a GOAL in 8 years. At this rate, I would be dead before Hong Kong completely get off coal as a power source.

BTW, I think you’re being a little disingenuous by saying EV are 80% efficient while ICE is 20%. Though those numbers are correct, EV does not generate its own power. It’s still dependent on an external source. What is the thermodynamic efficiency of a coal burning power plant? What about the energy loss through transmission line? Also, this article is talking about CO2 emission, not thermodynamic efficiency. Also, I hope you’re aware that turbo diesel are ~40% efficient? Does that mean a Turbo Diesel car is better for the environment than a gasoline powered car?

Just to give you some perspective, a coal power plant is 35-38% efficient, Natural Gas is 32-38% efficient, and nuclear is 38% efficient. Transmission line loses about 6% of the electricity. So even before putting the electricity in your BEV, we’re only looking at 30-35% efficiency. Then EV loses between 10-20% of that. So, we’re looking at 27-31% efficiency at best and 24-28% at worse. That doesn’t seem too different than the efficiency of an average ICE from several years ago. Gas Direct Injection Engine have an efficiency of 35%. Atkinson cycle engines in Hybrids gets about 10% more. Hydrogen Fuel is about 25% more efficient. So, if your goal is the highest thermodynamic efficiency, then GDI with Hydrogen would be the best choice. Definitely not BEV being powered by coal power plant.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=Escoguy]Another side affect, as EVs have zero emissions and are quieter, prices around freeways may eventually rise as the spillover effects of cars is lessened. It may take more than a decade to see the full impact.

But in general we should all welcome having cleaner air.[/quote]Depend on where you live. Here’s an article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-14/hong-kong-teslas-linked-to-more-co2-emissions-than-gasoline-cars.

In China, it’s even worse. If all of Hong Kong and China drive EV instead of gasoline powered cars today, our CO2 problem would be much worse.[/quote]

But you are not counting the 6 kWh of electricity and a gallon of water needed to refine a gallon of gasoline.

In the 1920’s it took energy from 1 barrel of oil to generate 100 barrels of oil.

Now that barrel yields 20 barrels, and for the tar sand, it is a 1:5 ratio.[/quote]are you trying to argue that coal is cleaner than gasoline?[/quote]

I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN]You guys are also concentrating solely on cars. While completely ignoring planes, tractors, big rigs, busses, work trucks, etc. EV is not suitable for any of that. To truly solve this problem, we need to find the next fuel source that can completely replace oil and coal in all applications, not just cars. Unless you can prove to me that BEV can be applied to all of those usage, I would say it’s a stop gap solution. I want a real solution, not a stop gap solution. Especially when my tax $ is being spent to subsidize it.

Not to mention China is producing about 1/3 of the world pollution. Mainly because of their coal burning power plants. This is with their current growth of demand for electricity (their cars are still powered by gas). If they don’t drastically change their energy source but replace their gas powered car with EV, I can see the world’s total CO2 emission will be much worse than it is today without EV in China. This is why I’m pushing for a holistic and long term solution.[/quote]

As EVs gain traction, gasoline prices will fall due to reduced demands, you’ll actually see cheaper fuels for airplanes and other large transport vehicles.

Battery density is increasing at dramatic speed. At the same time, $/kWh is dropping on yearly basis. Eventually, we will see a much wider variety of BEV vehicles, including trucks.

As for China, as their population move into middle class status, demand for cleaner environment is already forcing changes.

You complaint about the coal produced electricity, but you don’t complaint about the multi-step pollution from gasoline, especially the mere fact that just refining that gallon of gasoline uses 6 kWh of electricity. instead of using that 6 kWh to refine gasoline, just use that 6 kWh to power cars directly and eliminate the middle man.

The real problem here is there’s a lot of middle men within the current gasoline dominated status quo and they will do everything possible to maintain that status quo.

[svelte]

I’m just glad to see us get serious about alternate fuels. They are here and being tested, and I’m thrilled!

Will we all go EV? Fuel cell? Something else? A combination?

I don’t really care as long as we do something…the amount of oil on this earth is limited and we need to find what’s next while we still have enough gas left to help us get there.

Having most of my life go by with what appeared to be very little movement towards what’s next, I’m thrilled to see serious efforts underway to get there.

I’m a car guy and I’ve said before – I don’t care if my car is powered by gas, electrons, hydrogen, or banana peels as long as its fast, fun, stylish, and comfortable.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter]I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.[/quote]Coal companies are going bankrupt because of natural gas, not because of renewables.

[ocrenter]

[quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.[/quote]Coal companies are going bankrupt because of natural gas, not because of renewables.[/quote]

I don’t believe I said coal’s departure is due to renewables. Merely that coal is on its way out.

Natural gas is much cleaner as a source of electricity generation, but the entrenched powers will continue to use coal generated electricity as the standard to prove their point that EVs are dirty.

Yet they use the same dirty coal generated electricity to refine gasoline.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.[/quote]Coal companies are going bankrupt because of natural gas, not because of renewables.[/quote]

I don’t believe I said coal’s departure is due to renewables. Merely that coal is on its way out.

Natural gas is much cleaner as a source of electricity generation, but the entrenched powers will continue to use coal generated electricity as the standard to prove their point that EVs are dirty.

Yet they use the same dirty coal generated electricity to refine gasoline.[/quote]

Same circular argument of opposition that says we can’t do X until we do Y, or because of Y, and Z.
Yes, thing are interelated. But relationships are not static; they change as we evolve.

[an]

[quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.[/quote]Coal companies are going bankrupt because of natural gas, not because of renewables.[/quote]

I don’t believe I said coal’s departure is due to renewables. Merely that coal is on its way out.

Natural gas is much cleaner as a source of electricity generation, but the entrenched powers will continue to use coal generated electricity as the standard to prove their point that EVs are dirty.

Yet they use the same dirty coal generated electricity to refine gasoline.[/quote] and I never said think gasoline is clean. My objection is against front capitalism and not for gasoline. Again, pro EV camp seem to overlook the dirty coal.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=ocrenter][quote=AN][quote=ocrenter]I’m arguing renewables are cleaner than gasoline. Coal companies are going bankrupt as we speak.[/quote]Coal companies are going bankrupt because of natural gas, not because of renewables.[/quote]

I don’t believe I said coal’s departure is due to renewables. Merely that coal is on its way out.

Natural gas is much cleaner as a source of electricity generation, but the entrenched powers will continue to use coal generated electricity as the standard to prove their point that EVs are dirty.

Yet they use the same dirty coal generated electricity to refine gasoline.[/quote]

Same circular argument of opposition that says we can’t do X until we do Y, or because of Y, and Z.
Yes, thing are interelated. But relationships are not static; they change as we evolve.[/quote]Why do X when doing Y will have a much bigger effect on CO2 emission? Why waste tax $ on X when doing C is a much better long term solution? Just because you’re against X doesn’t
mean you’re for Y and Z? Is it really that hard to understand?

[Author]

Posts