General / Off-Topic Electric cars: Are we doing it right?

[Bob Lighthouse]

Came across this blog recently, thought some of the people in this thread might find it interesting.


Excerpt:

In order to deliver 30 kWh to your house to fully charge the Leaf’s 24 kWh battery bank, for example—incorporating the charge efficiency this time, the source of electricity becomes a highly relevant factor. Two-thirds of our electricity comes from fossil fuel plants, typically converting 35% of the fossil fuel thermal energy into electricity. Only 90% of this makes it through the transmission system, on average. If your electricity comes from a fossil fuel plant, the 30 kWh delivered to your house took about 95 kWh of fossil fuel energy. The 73 miles the Leaf travels on a full charge now puts it at an energy efficiency of 130 kWh/100-mi. The MPG equivalent number is 28 MPG. From a carbon-dioxide standpoint, you’d be better off burning the fossil fuel directly in your car.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/mpg-for-electric-cars/


Broader look at alt energy sources here:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-matrix/

 

[NeilF]

Came across this blog recently, thought some of the people in this thread might find it interesting.


Excerpt:



https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/mpg-for-electric-cars/


Broader look at alt energy sources here:
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-matrix/

Does this suggestion assume the fossil fuels magic themselves into our vehicles, or does it take into consideration tons of fuel being stored, pumped, transported, stored and pumped etc (clearly all using energy not only in the pumping/transport/storage, but even the power/building of such locations)?

And of course, more and more of our electricity is generally coming from renewables too. Was it one perfect day last year where over half our electricity was renewables? I was impressed by that!

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Does this suggestion assume the fossil fuels magic themselves into our vehicles, or does it take into consideration tons of fuel being stored, pumped, transported, stored and pumped etc (clearly all using energy not only in the pumping/transport/storage, but even the power/building of such locations)?

And of course, more and more of our electricity is generally coming from renewables too. Was it one perfect day last year where over half our electricity was renewables? I was impressed by that!

I gave the linkS for a reason.
He's pretty thorough you'll find.

No one is suggesting it's not an admirable direction to go but rather at our current consumption levels etc, it's basically fairy dust.

I think it's a red herring.
What we have is a "too many people problem" and a "per capita consumption problem" and not a "carbon" problem.
Neither of those things look to be slowing down, much less being outpaced by some yet unforeseen tech or new energy source.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Then again, how far are you willing to go?



https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2015/08/op-ed-how-i-gave-up-alternating-current/



*edit
As a self admitted food/cooking junky the kitchen part was hilarious and on point.

 

[NeilF]

I gave the linkS for a reason.
He's pretty thorough you'll find.

No one is suggesting it's not an admirable direction to go but rather at our current consumption levels etc, it's basically fairy dust.

I think it's a red herring.
What we have is a "too many people problem" and a "per capita consumption problem" and not a "carbon" problem.
Neither of those things look to be slowing down, much less being outpaced by some yet unforeseen tech or new energy source.

Huh? Energy efficiency is increasing and home energy usage falling. Combine this with an increase in renewable energy and potentially even fusion in 20+yrs or so... What not to like about electric vehicles?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Huh? Energy efficiency is increasing and home energy usage falling. Combine this with an increase in renewable energy and potentially even fusion in 20+yrs or so... What not to like about electric vehicles?

Did you bother to think about those premises at all?
Fusion?

That's the fairy dust!

Lol!

Usage falling?
For whom exactly?
The world is showing no signs of any such things, quite the contrary.

 

[NeilF]

Did you bother to think about those premises at all?
Fusion?

That's the fairy dust!

Lol!

Usage falling?
For whom exactly?
The world is showing no signs of any such things, quite the contrary.

I didn't say the world usage was falling, but in the UK for example, per head usage is falling. No reason with rising costs, why that won't propagate. The more fossil fuel costs rise, the more efficiency is worthwhile, and the more renewables are cost effective.


As for fusion being fairy dust, I look forward to seeing you get your Nobel prize saving many companies, currently well into fusion development, trillions of $...Who would have thought we'd see such well founded insights into nuclear fusion buried on a little game forum! Astounding!

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

I didn't say the world usage was falling, but in the UK for example, per head usage is falling. No reason with rising costs, why propagate.


As for fusion being fairy dust, I look forward to seeing you get your Nobel prize saving many companies currently well into its development, trillions of $...Who would have thought we'd see such well founded insights into nuclear fusion buried on a little game forum! Astounding!

LOL.
It is "currently" fairy dust.
It's specifically mentioned in the matrix, in the second link I provided.
You know, the one by this guy?

Tom Murphy is an associate professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego.

My whole position has been global, so if you're responding to some other point in your head, I cannot help you.
See the chart here:
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-p...tal-energy-production-long-run-view-by-source


You're talking about drops in the proverbial bucket.

 

[Zak Gordon]

Does this suggestion assume the fossil fuels magic themselves into our vehicles, or does it take into consideration tons of fuel being stored, pumped, transported, stored and pumped etc (clearly all using energy not only in the pumping/transport/storage, but even the power/building of such locations)?

The answer (according to the article) appears to be no, and attracted a few comments saying it should to better reflect his blog.

Also the author himself notes that maybe he is a little over concerned about 'peak oil' (in his 'Chicken Little page' link).

The guy is a scientist with some concerns. There are many just like him all over the world. What his article is not is a peer reviewed academic piece on the subject. Scientists are people too and have opinions on stuff, BUT it takes a good bunch of them applying vigorously the scientific method and going through a proper peer review process to get to any semblance of 'truth' on the subject.

Bob Lighthouse is also a scientist with some opinions

 

[NeilF]

My whole position has been global, so if you're responding to some other point in your head, I cannot help you.
See the chart here:
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-p...tal-energy-production-long-run-view-by-source


You're talking about drops in the proverbial bucket.

Is an astounding chart/set of figures isn't it...

You can only imagine if we sat back as a "concerned" planet and thought things through, how things might be different

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Is an astounding chart/set of figures isn't it...

You can only imagine if we sat back as a "concerned" planet and thought things through, how things might be different

Again, no one is suggesting it isn't an admirable direction to go.
Why do you keep trying the red herrings and straw arguments?

I don't fall for that horsepucky!

LOL!

Here's the rub:

On a temperature adjusted basis, final energy consumption was up 0.9per cent.

D'oh!

https://assets.publishing.service.g..._data/file/633029/DUKES_2017_Press_Notice.pdf

 

[Zak Gordon]

When I first approached the subject of energy in our society, I expected to develop a picture in my mind of our grandiose future, full of alternative energy sources like solar, wind, nuclear, biofuels, geothermal, tidal, etc. What I got instead was something like this matrix: full of inadequacies, difficulties, and show-stoppers. Our success at managing the transition away from fossil fuels while maintaining our current standard of living is far from guaranteed. If such success is our goal, we should realize the scale of the challenge and buckle down now while we still have the resources to develop a costly new infrastructure. Otherwise we get behind the curve, possibly facing unfamiliar chaos, loss of economic confidence, resource wars, and the unforgiving Energy Trap. The other controlled option is to deliberately adjust our lives to require fewer resources, preferably abandoning the growth paradigm at the same time. Can we manage a calm, orderly exit from the building? In either case, the first step is to agree that the building is in trouble. Techno-optimism keeps us from even agreeing on that.

- Tom Murphy

The guy is full of good info and sees the issue pretty clearly. I have no issue with much of his stuff laid out in those two links (or even around his website). However the feeling you get reading his stuff is here is a guy slightly despairing at the lack of (fast enough) progress in dealing with our energy issues, and looking at the potential worse case scenario's, but only from a certain perspective.

What we need is people like him sending letters to their respective government officials telling them how close we actually are to running out of time to transition to green energy. As he himself says we really need to do it and fully role out EV's and all the rest of the infrastructure we need to make it all work. And it will cost (alot), but the cost of not doing it is really the end of civilization concerns he makes clear he harbours.

What he definitely ISN'T saying is keep burning fossil fuel (and increasing CO2).

 

[NeilF]

Again, no one is suggesting it isn't an admirable direction to go.
Why do you keep trying the red herrings and straw arguments?

Huh? Red herrings and straw arguments... I simply made a straight forward comment? Are you that up for a "fight" you invent them?

I simply said the scale of what's shown in your chart is astounding, and you can only imagine how more healthy it might instead look with a more "world view" taken towards energy usage?!?!?!?

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

- Tom Murphy

The guy is full of good info and sees the issue pretty clearly. I have no issue with much of his stuff laid out in those two links (or even around his website). However the feeling you get reading his stuff is here is a guy slightly despairing at the lack of (fast enough) progress in dealing with our energy issues, and looking at the potential worse case scenario's, but only from a certain perspective.

What we need is people like him sending letters to their respective government officials telling them how close we actually are to running out of time to transition to green energy. As he himself says we really need to do it and fully role out EV's and all the rest of the infrastructure we need to make it all work. And it will cost (alot), but the cost of not doing it is really the end of civilization concerns he makes clear he harbours.

Great analysis.
+rep

We really need to manage our expectations, and our consumption.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

Huh? Red herrings and straw arguments... I simply made a straight forward comment? Are you that up for a "fight" you invent them?

Well yes, you are being vague and wishy-washy too.
You engaged with me.

 

[Bob Lighthouse]

From the same UK data, this is the reality of solar etc:

Electricity generated from renewable sources in the UK in 2016 decreased by 0.2
per cent on a year earlier, and accounted for 24.5 per centof total UK electricity generation.
Lower rainfall and wind speeds resulted in lower hydro and wind generation, more than offsetting a 16 per cent increase in total capacity compared to 2015.

 

[NeilF]

Well yes, you are being vague and wishy-washy too.
You engaged with me.

Odd... Very odd...

 

[Zak Gordon]

We have the answers to the problem (of AGW) and EV's can be part of that (especially as we also find the hidden health cost of ICE cars), the problem really is where the current energy producers (and political allies) resist and subvert the transition to green energy production.

If we burnt ALL the current known reserves of fossil fuel (Oil/gas/coal etc) the scientific consensus (important!) is that we would hit +4 degrees C of extra warming. The concern over peak oil is kind of a false issue in light of that, as really we can not afford to burn all known reserves. If we did, that would most likely be a civilization (as we know it) ending event. It might even trigger run away greenhouse warming, and we can look across at our neighbour Venus to see what that ends up looking like!

So this particular debate is kind of pointless. If we want a habitable world we HAVE to transition to green energy production, reduce CO2 output (globally) and stop (asap) using fossil fuels. It's that black and white.

EV's (zero CO2 running emissions) powered by green energy production (zero CO2 emissions) are just the future, if we want/have a future.

 

[Zak Gordon]

'Tesla drops $35,000 price from Model 3 page—insists plans haven’t changed':

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...om-model-3-page-insists-plans-havent-changed/

The release of the Model 3 was supposed to be the moment when Tesla finally made a car that was affordable for the masses.

"In terms of price, it'll be $35,000," Musk said at the March 2016 Model 3 announcement event. "And I want to emphasize that even if you buy no options at all, this will still be an amazing car."

For the last two years, Tesla's page for the Model 3 has touted a starting price of $35,000. "Model 3 achieves up to 310 miles of range while starting at only $35,000 before incentives," the page read on Thursday morning.

But later in the day, Tesla revamped the Model 3 page, removing any mention of a $35,000 price (or any other price) in the process.

We asked Tesla about this, and a Tesla spokesperson said that nothing has changed. "Tesla plans to introduce the $35,000 version in the future," she said—though she couldn't give a specific time frame for the new lower price.

"It's a mistake to position this as a change in Tesla's plan because it's not," she told Ars in a phone interview. "We're just focusing on the options that are available now for our customers so that it's more clear. There's nothing else to it."

Tesla has never taken orders for a $35,000 Model 3. Tesla's Model 3 order page lists "long range battery" options for $49,000 and $53,000 and a "performance" model for $64,000. The page specifies "standard Battery available in 6-9 months." Presumably that's the version that's supposed to cost $35,000, though the page doesn't give an expected price.

Currently, it's still possible to find a mention of the $35,000 price on Tesla's website if you look hard enough. Tesla's "press kit" page continues to note that the Model 3 has a "starting price of $35,000 before incentives."

 

[Zak Gordon]

I was worried we might have lost this thread, but i found it, unlocked as well

'We got our first good look at BMW’s new electric iNext, on sale in 2021':

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2018/0...k-at-bmws-new-electric-inext-on-sale-in-2021/

You have to hand it to BMW. Our first look at its new Vision iNext concept car—a production version of which arrives in 2021—was certainly memorable. I've seen concepts unveiled at auto shows and at design studios, but this was definitely the first time I've seen one introduced in the belly of a Boeing 777F parked under a cover at Kennedy Airport in New York. Ars was invited to get up close and personal with the iNext, which is an important vehicle for BMW. When the production version goes on sale in 2021, it will be the first use the company's new vehicle architecture and its first long-range battery electric vehicle.

BMW says we can think of the iNext as "Project i 2.0," Project i being the sub-brand that has given us the rather good i3 and the sublime i8. But let's be honest: both of those EVs served rather limited niches; a crossover is always going to have mass appeal. And so a crossover is what we have; one with bold styling and some thoughtful ideas for the future of UI, UX, and interior cabin design that BMW will hopefully iterate into production.

Not a lot of info in what mostly feels like a marketing piece, but at least we know about it now, and can look for proper reviews later on. I think it looks ugly as shown in the article, but it is in full concept car skin it seems?