New Tesla insanity

[Firebase99]

0 to 60 in 2.5 seconds...lol. Thats just bananas.

https://www.tesla.com/blog/new-tesla..._medium=social

[BlackZeda]

As time goes on, the thought of buying a car that is not electric or a hybrid seems silly. I read somewhere that internal combustion engines will be seen as an antiquated technology shortly, just as when it replaced the horse-and-buggy; and I agree!

Hopefully in the next 2-5 years someone will come out with an affordable hybrid sports car that takes advantage of all that instant torque that an electric motor gives you.

[Firebase99]

Originally Posted by BlackZeda

As time goes on, the thought of buying a car that is not electric or a hybrid seems silly. I read somewhere that internal combustion engines will be seen as an antiquated technology shortly, just as when it replaced the horse-and-buggy; and I agree!

Hopefully in the next 2-5 years someone will come out with an affordable hybrid sports car that takes advantage of all that instant torque that an electric motor gives you.

Elon Musk is also planning to manufacturer Semi Trucks and buses by 2020. Its definitely happening.

[Darwins Child]

I don't really know if this is OT or not, but before mass-market adoption of EVs (whether it be a Tesla supercar, or any other EVs), there are some important questions that mankind as a whole and consumers as individuals have to answer.

Before I retired, I worked in coal, oil and nuclear fueled power plants, so I know much more than the average person about how electricity is produced and a bit less about how that power is distributed to its consumers.

1. How will the electricity that will be required to manufacture the EV vehicles, as well as charge the batteries of perhaps billions of EVs, going to be produced and what electrical infrastructure is going to be required to bring that electricity into homes?

2. Will EVs be practical for those who live in snowy, very cold climates where, for just one example, those EVs' interiors must be constantly heated?

3. Which would be "better" -- to burn natural gas in a "clean" power plant that will produce electricity to charge an EV's battery, or to burn that natural gas in a vehicle that has a well-designed internal combustion engine?

All of the political and technical obstacles to EVs can be overcome with political (mostly propaganda) and technological solutions, especially if the electricity is going to be generated with wind turbines, solar panels, etc., but the surface of the planet and residential roofs in an EV-only world will almost certainly look far different than they do now.

To be as brief as possible, if centralized fossil-fuel or nuclear power plants generate the electricity for EVs, there will be a whole raft of political and technological problems that will have to be dealt with for literally hundreds of years (if the environmental conditions of the planet remain habitable for humans, that is).

[SouthArk370Z]

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

1. How will the electricity that will be required to manufacture the EV vehicles, as well as charge the batteries of perhaps billions of EVs, going to be produced and what electrical infrastructure is going to be required to bring that electricity into homes?

Generating the electricity is technically fairly easy to do using nuclear - but the NIMBY crowd will probably continue to make it difficult/impossible to construct new capacity.
Transmission, on the other hand, is a big problem. Many parts of the grid - especially those parts around major metropolitan areas, were EVs would do the most good - are already operating above design capacity.

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

2. Will EVs be practical for those who live in snowy, very cold climates where, for just one example, those EVs' interiors must be constantly heated?

While electric heat would definitely decrease range, newer batteries have an incredible amount of storage capacity. In really cold areas, LPG (readily available, reasonably cheap, as safe to store/carry as gasoline) heating could be used.

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

3. Which would be "better" -- to burn natural gas in a "clean" power plant that will produce electricity to charge an EV's battery, or to burn that natural gas in a vehicle that has a well-designed internal combustion engine?

A central plant is more efficient and cleaner than distributed generation. If for no other reason than maintenance on the pollution control systems - the plants are constantly monitored and adjustments/repairs made when needed.

But you run into the transmission problems mentioned above.

Ie, neither solution is better.

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

All of the political and technical obstacles to EVs can be overcome with political (mostly propaganda) and technological solutions, especially if the electricity is going to be generated with wind turbines, solar panels, etc., but the surface of the planet and residential roofs in an EV-only world will almost certainly look far different than they do now.

All those alternatives come at a price. Wind takes up a lot of space and produces a lot of noise. The areas where there is enough wind on a regular basis are very limited. Solar panel production is very "dirty" and disposal of panels that run their life span (or are broken) will be a problem.

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

To be as brief as possible, if centralized fossil-fuel or nuclear power plants generate the electricity for EVs, there will be a whole raft of political and technological problems that will have to be dealt with for literally hundreds of years (if the environmental conditions of the planet remain habitable for humans, that is).

As far as I can tell, the only real, long-term solution is to reduce the demand for energy in all forms. More generation is, at best, a stop-gap measure.

[Jsolo]

When you get into such performance numbers, 0-60 doesn't really matter. Look at motorcycles, you'll be hard pressed to find 0-60 times but 1/4 mi numbers are usually mentioned.

DC points out some valid concerns. Not to mention handling of used battery/recycling.

[MagmaRed370z]

2.5 seconds its nuts. What's next, 2 seconds? unbelievable performance for sure.

I am wondering what those Hypercars/Supercars guys are thinking when they are doing 0-60 in 2.9 and their cars costing $500,000+

[UNKNOWN_370]

The only thing insane about Tesla is battery whine and tire squeal.


I'll take a car that does 4 seconds with feedback and drama over this any day.

[Darwins Child]

Originally Posted by SouthArk370Z

Generating the electricity is technically fairly easy to do using nuclear -

Again, I have worked in both fossil a nuclear power plants. The complexity of what is required to safely convert nuclear energy into electrical energy versus the complexity of what is required to convert fossil-fuel energy into electrical energy is astronomical. IMO, nuclear is light years from "fairly easy".

but the NIMBY crowd will probably continue to make it difficult/impossible to construct new capacity.
Transmission, on the other hand, is a big problem. Many parts of the grid - especially those parts around major metropolitan areas, were EVs would do the most good - are already operating above design capacity.


While electric heat would definitely decrease range, newer batteries have an incredible amount of storage capacity. In really cold areas, LPG (readily available, reasonably cheap, as safe to store/carry as gasoline) heating could be used.


A central plant is more efficient and cleaner than distributed generation. If for no other reason than maintenance on the pollution control systems - the plants are constantly monitored and adjustments/repairs made when needed.
I'm not exactly sure what you men by "central plant", but if you mean a nuclear or natural gas power plant right smack dab in the center of a city, or smaller plants in say every neighborhood of a large city, the political and technical problems go up substantially, especially for nuclear.

IMO, with efficiency losses in production and transmission, as well as the acknowledged need for heated vehicles, it makes good economic sense to burn the natural gas right in a vehicle's internal combustion engine, just as one can do this very day, albeit with some serious motivation. The problems with electrical transmission go bye bye, too.

But you run into the transmission problems mentioned above.

Ie, neither solution is better.


All those alternatives come at a price. Wind takes up a lot of space and produces a lot of noise. The areas where there is enough wind on a regular basis are very limited. Solar panel production is very "dirty" and disposal of panels that run their life span (or are broken) will be a problem.


As far as I can tell, the only real, long-term solution is to reduce the demand for energy in all forms. More generation is, at best, a stop-gap measure.

Agree 100%. The easiest way to accomplish this is encouraging people to have fewer children. The problem is that whatever you want to call the present economic system of very few people owning the vast majority of wealth requires a rapidly-growing population. In the present system, the problems of a stable or shrinking population are literally unsolvable (as we will once again soon see when the next president suddenly marches out in front of the cameras and declares yet another financial crisis that yet again requires unprecedented central bank actions along with the abolishment of cash).

Comments above.

[SouthArk370Z]

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

Again, I have worked in both fossil a nuclear power plants. The complexity of what is required to safely convert nuclear energy into electrical energy versus the complexity of what is required to convert fossil-fuel energy into electrical energy is astronomical. IMO, nuclear is light years from "fairly easy".

Perhaps "easy" was a poor choice of words. We have the technology and are able to apply it to build reasonably safe reactors (nothing is 100% safe). Of course, there is the problem of spent fuel storage and disposal/recycling. And transmission/distribution problems will still be there no matter what fuel is used for generation.

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

I'm not exactly sure what you men by "central plant", but if you mean a nuclear or natural gas power plant right smack dab in the center of a city, or smaller plants in say every neighborhood of a large city, the political and technical problems go up substantially, especially for nuclear.

What I meant was a few large plants are more efficient (and cleaner) than many smaller ones. As you say, placing plants in dense urban areas is not a good solution.

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

IMO, with efficiency losses in production and transmission, as well as the acknowledged need for heated vehicles, it makes good economic sense to burn the natural gas right in a vehicle's internal combustion engine, just as one can do this very day, albeit with some serious motivation. The problems with electrical transmission go bye bye, too.

Many smaller sources will be less efficient than a few larger sources, even with transmission and distribution losses.
There are a lot of transmission/distribution costs involved with all fuels. Eg, oil has to be moved from field to refinery, refinery to gas station, and gas station to consumer. There is no free lunch.

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

Agree 100%. The easiest way to accomplish this is encouraging people to have fewer children.

+1. Not easy but, yes, probably the easiest.

Originally Posted by Darwins Child

The problem is that whatever you want to call the present economic system. ...

Can't say that I agree with your analysis of the situation ... but I can't say you are wrong.

[wanker]

Tesla's are very, very popular in my next of the woods.

Interestingly, the biggest complaint is that if you drive them somewhat aggressively, the battery life/range per charge drops significantly -- substantially, more than the loss of mileage with an naturally aspirated engine driven in the same manner. Hence, most Tesla owners only use them as commuter cars, and are reluctant to take them on extended road trip -- even between LA and San Diego.

[Firebase99]

Originally Posted by wanker

Tesla's are very, very popular in my next of the woods.

Interestingly, the biggest complaint is that if you drive them somewhat aggressively, the battery life/range per charge drops significantly -- substantially, more than the loss of mileage with an naturally aspirated engine driven in the same manner. Hence, most Tesla owners only use them as commuter cars, and are reluctant to take them on extended road trip -- even between LA and San Diego.

There are about 3 to 4 P85's in any given day in my rather tiny parking lot at work.