What 5% are you talking about?
also the 2k in gas multiplies if you own solar like some of us
Tesla ... thoughts on their cars?
- Thread starter PSU_Chicago
- Start date
What 5% are you talking about?
also the 2k in gas multiplies if you own solar like some of us
5% of travel that goes outside of the 300 mile limit.
on the $2k, ok, its an average. but you also have to consider that the average ownership age of a car is three years. So you get, what, a $6000 savings over three years? We all have our own scale as to what this is worth....to each his own. Just pointing out facts when you put pencil to paper. Clearly, there are advantages....and disadvantages.
I hear ya but the range is unlimited as long as you charge along the way no different than getting gas other than it takes a little longer to charge than fill up a tank
take a trip from philly to pittsburg you have to charge once as its roughly 300+ miles you have to charge once so your range now becomes say 450 to get there to get back you charge once more so for two charges I went 600 miles
Somerset and Harrisburg have stations right off the turnpike
Have to disagree. it is different. It takes me 15 minutes to refuel at any one of a couple thousand gas stations in the corrupt state of PA. If you drive in traffic like LA, NY, Austin you get a different experience. If you drive in upstate MI in the winter, you will get a different experience. If you drive from Dallas to Lubbock, you will get a different experience. Not everyone drives from Philly to Pittsburgh.
It is improving. It is better. It isn't the same. And people need to make smart choices.
that's the kicker so far
with the supercharger installed in the car and using a supercharger station if you go about 150 miles (half of range) you just have to recharge for the 150 mile spent-- should take 20-30 minutes. an hour to fill the full 300 if you opt to get down to around under 40 miles left
Last edited:
One way or another, the clock is ticking for Tesla
They have been saying that for 10 years.....
that's the kicker so far
with the supercharger installed in the car and using a supercharger station if you go about 150 miles (half of range) you just have to recharge for the 150 mile spent-- should take 20-30 minutes. an hour to fill the full 300 if you opt to get down to around under 40 miles left
All teslas have the ability to use the full power of the supercharger with the exception of the roadster and very early Model S. They did offer a dual charger option very early, but through battery management improvements have eliminated the need for this component late in 2013.
You should also probably remove maintenance from your costs comparison above. So many less moving parts in a fully electric car guarantees less maintenance.
One of the interesting things we are learning is battery degradation is also not much of a concern either. Many have over 100K miles and less than 2% battery loss.
Lion78 ... question from the wife ... is the Tesla your sole car or do you have another gas vehicle as back up?
My wife drives an A5 convertible, but I haven't driven it but a few times since the purchase of the S and only because it's a convertible. You really need to look at your likely longer trips where you will need to plan for charging. How inconvenient are the superchargers to your direct route and how do you charge once you are at your destination. Also look and the planned superchargers as Telsa will double the number over the next 1.5 years.
We've taken trips to the mountains (Greenbriar), many trips to the Delmarva beaches, down to Pinehurst, and a trip up to the coast of Maine. Took the the Princess of Argos (Electra) every time.
My first car, mid-80's, was a 1974 AMC Hornet ........ boy did I beat the hell out of that car.I often wondered what happened to all of those AMC Gremlins....now I know...Elon Musk had them stored away until the right time....
An hour for 300-plus miles to charge. We will all be driving Tesla's in 7-10 years. They are effin' awesome. Zero liquids other than windshield washer fluid. Game changer. Top notch. Comfy as hell. Made iPads as a display before iPads existed. Get one if you need a car change
You don't have to change the transmission fluid in a Tesla. Why not? Because a Tesla doesn't have a transmission.
It appears that Chevy has already beaten Tesla to the mass market EV.
As far as chaging these vehicles, that's going to be more of an issue. A home charger is a must and the cost of that is added to the vehicle for first time owners. As far as refueling, an hour is a lot longer than 3 minutes, and if you have to wait in line at a charging station for two hours to recharge, that's a huge problem. The biggest obstacle is going to be getting charging stations out ahead of mass sales of these vehicles.
Again, I think people are focusing on the fringe issues - the long distance limitations to these vehicles. Most people, including people who purchase vehicles at this price point, are not going to drive them at 300 miles+ at one time.
If you do get a Tesla, see if you can get personalized license plates that say "Nikola".
It will befuddle the masses.
It will befuddle the masses.
Chevy? Because they are going to produce 30K Volts? Nuff said on that topic.
Charging? Yes, it is and will continue to be an ever lessening issue for long trips. Imagine you had a gas station at home that filled your tank every night. 99% of your miles will be handle that way.
Chevy? Because they are going to produce 30K Volts? Nuff said on that topic.
The Bolt is looking more and more like a compliance car. They are selling about a thousand per month and that appears to be quite ok with GM. Don't want to steal any sales away from your bread and butter gasmobiles!
I think in the immediate future, people will just have 2 cars, an electric and a gas. Electric for all the short stuff, gas for the longer stuff when required. At some point in the future, I suspect battery life will improve such that mileage continues to improve and charging gets faster and more of them. I think the other revolution coming is if the driverless cars get approved. Once that occurs, the Uber/Lyft ridesharing costs will have to start to come way down as no longer have to pay a driver. Just have an electric car (which will be much cheaper on a per mile basis over the 150,000 mile life of that car in a ridesharing app) that drives around for 22 hours per day and 2 hours to charge. Once that occurs, I think you start to see most city families go to one car only with the second car gone as the ridesharing takes up the burden.
The only question is when, not if.
The only question is when, not if.
This entire conversation desperately begs the question:
Does anyone know how this thing we call "electricity" is produced?
One might think - based on discussions like these - that the commonly accepted answer is that it either falls from the heavens or that it grows on trees.
Kinda' funny....... in a
kind of way
Does anyone know how this thing we call "electricity" is produced?
One might think - based on discussions like these - that the commonly accepted answer is that it either falls from the heavens or that it grows on trees.
Kinda' funny....... in a
kind of wayTrue. Thisis sorta funny ...This entire conversation desperately begs the question:
Does anyone know how this thing we call "electricity" is produced?
One might think - based on discussions like these - that the commonly accepted answer is that it either falls from the heavens or that it grows on trees.
Kinda' funny....... in a
China is mandating relatively high percentage of sales be electric .... and their electricity comes from coal lol
France basically has no mandates on EV's, and gets their electricity from nuclear
True, but for most people, it may mean either retaining a gas - powered vehicle or at least being able to conveniently rent one.
Believe me, I'm all for EV's, but I think people are sometimes thinking rather superficially about how this is going to happen.
Same way gasoline is produced.This entire conversation desperately begs the question:
Does anyone know how this thing we call "electricity" is produced?
One might think - based on discussions like these - that the commonly accepted answer is that it either falls from the heavens or that it grows on trees.
Kinda' funny....... in a
This entire conversation desperately begs the question:
Does anyone know how this thing we call "electricity" is produced?
One might think - based on discussions like these - that the commonly accepted answer is that it either falls from the heavens or that it grows on trees.
Kinda' funny....... in a
yeah and nay. getting electric from the grid is more efficient than a car engine. Large scale power has a much higher efficiency in converting fuel to electricity then a small car engine, plus the electric car gets better 'gas mileage' so the overall fuel usage per mile driven is less. And if it comes from solar panel on your house, then it doesn't take any fuel. But there is this notion that an EV takes no 'power' at all which is false assuming that you don't have solar panels. The other benefit is that EV cars get power from the grid and that power is generated by natural gas, nuclear, or wind/solar all of which don't come from the Middle East. So as the American cars (and worldwide cars) got to EV, then OPEC becomes useless as the need for oil is dramatically reduced, which is a good thing.
Not sure why people are so excited about a car that runs on coal and needs taxpayer subsidies to survive.
I live in a small town in Florida that is very affluent and "electric car friendly" with designated parking for such. There are quite a few Tesla's as well as Volt's and other hybrids. The Tesla owners I have talked to love them. My son and four people in his office have ordered the "Model 3s".
PLUS the "threat" of electric cars are keeping oil prices down. The managed price of oil is slowing down the growth of the cars, but it is a losing proposition (short of like investing in horses).
PLUS the "threat" of electric cars are keeping oil prices down. The managed price of oil is slowing down the growth of the cars, but it is a losing proposition (short of like investing in horses).
The amount of ignorance in that statement is staggering.
This entire conversation desperately begs the question:
Does anyone know how this thing we call "electricity" is produced?
One might think - based on discussions like these - that the commonly accepted answer is that it either falls from the heavens or that it grows on trees.
Kinda' funny....... in a
So....if one desires to reduce usage/dependence on fossil fuels.... which option makes sense:
A - Spend $5 Billion?, $10 Billion? to subsidize the marketing of a vehicle that uses a power source that is largely (over 80%) generated by the consumption of fossil fuels. (while making a handful of folks increasingly wealthy, at that taxpayer expense....and that provides, in exchange for those collective $$$$s, for the vast majority, absolutely zero benefit)
or
B - Spend that $5 or $10 billion dollars underwriting and developing methods to produce that power through "non-fossil fuel" (ie alternative energy) sources.........so that EVERYONE can benefit from the decreased reliance on fossil fuels (whether one views the benefit as a "global-warming" benefit, or a "eliminate middle-east conflation" benefit, or whatever issues they hold near and dear)
Option A
- Near zero impact on fossil fuel usage, and - at that - only wrt power needed to provide personal transportation.
- Redistribution of wealth to a tiny minority
Option B
- Reduced reliance on fossil fuel dependence - - - - for EVERY power need.
- Benefits for everyone.....financial, ecological (assuming you place any weight on the global warming issue), political, social, etc.
Yeah.....that's what I thought. Option A is MUCH better
A - Spend $5 Billion?, $10 Billion? to subsidize the marketing of a vehicle that uses a power source that is largely (over 80%) generated by the consumption of fossil fuels. (while making a handful of folks increasingly wealthy, at that taxpayer expense....and that provides, in exchange for those collective $$$$s, for the vast majority, absolutely zero benefit)
or
B - Spend that $5 or $10 billion dollars underwriting and developing methods to produce that power through "non-fossil fuel" (ie alternative energy) sources.........so that EVERYONE can benefit from the decreased reliance on fossil fuels (whether one views the benefit as a "global-warming" benefit, or a "eliminate middle-east conflation" benefit, or whatever issues they hold near and dear)
Option A
- Near zero impact on fossil fuel usage, and - at that - only wrt power needed to provide personal transportation.
- Redistribution of wealth to a tiny minority
Option B
- Reduced reliance on fossil fuel dependence - - - - for EVERY power need.
- Benefits for everyone.....financial, ecological (assuming you place any weight on the global warming issue), political, social, etc.
Yeah.....that's what I thought. Option A is MUCH better
Electric cars are so much more efficient.
A gallon of gasoline contains roughly 33kWh of energy. The Tesla Model S D75 has a 75kWh battery. In gasoline terms the Model S has "fuel tank" size of a 2.27 gallons. The EPA range for The Model S D75 is 259 miles.
right and if you got solar --- party time---- good sunny day yesterday nothing like renewables
Last edited:
This entire conversation desperately begs the question:
Does anyone know how this thing we call "electricity" is produced?
One might think - based on discussions like these - that the commonly accepted answer is that it either falls from the heavens or that it grows on trees.
Kinda' funny....... in a
or this way
------so your not too far off from "falling from the heavens"
Last edited:
Where do I start? First, you need to get your information from more than Koch Bros. paid articles.
car that runs on coal. All cars run on electricity, 40% of which is generated by coal. Where do you think the electricity needed to refine oil into gas, pump it up the pipelines, run the gas stations comes from? Same place as I get mine to charge my car. Big difference is that my way of using coal is much more efficient. It's much less costly to transport electricity through the grid than transport gasoline to a station.
It takes roughly 7.5 kilowatts to produce one gallon of gas. I get between 20-25 miles using those 5 kilowatts. Every car that doesn't get that MPG is using more coal than I am and that's not including the additional gains from transport efficiency.
Subsidies - really doesn't need a discussion if you understand the oil and gas subsidies in this country.
I didn't buy a Model S to save the planet. Electric transport is just a smarter way to make a car. Less things to break or service.
Last edited:
Average BTU per gallon of petroleum used to produce electricity.....140,000 BTU
Average conversion rate, BTU per KWH....... 11,000 PTU per KWH
Gallon of fossil fuel generates 13KWH (that is before accounting for any transmission losses - i.e. a "best case scenario. In actuality, transmission losses are typically 5% - - - a bit more than the "generation" costs of petroleum separation, but not enough to make it a significant factor in the comparison)
Which makes a TESLA Model S - BEST CASE - just about as efficient vav Fossil Fuel usage as a Honda Civic or a Chevy Cruze Sedan
It is what it is.
Someone wants to buy a TESLA? More power to them. Folks ought to be able to buy whatever car they want.
The idea that they should be subsidized? -
as opposed to subsidizing something that is actually beneficial....say something like enhancing the efficiency and resources utilized to actually PRODUCE the energy -
is just either a lie or a "stoopid".
But this issue gets so emotionally conflated that any discussion in the public realm - that I have ever seen - always degenerates into a meaningless Battle of the Buzzwords.
Right now:
From a governmental perspective: APPEARING to care about "global warming" is a politically savvy maneuver
From a personal perspective: BELIEVING your actions are motivated by "efficiency" and "global responsibility" appear to be comforting to many
(and, in fairness, if one ignores the costs - and the opportunity costs - there is a slight benefit wrt vehicles like a "TESLA")
And those factors don't appear to be changing anytime soon (certainly not enough to allow for facts and reason to rule the day)...... so there ya' go.
Electric Cars= No Products of Combustion. Why? Because nothing to combust. No POC means less pollutants in the air, no combustible fuel means less underground tanks that holds the fuel to leak into the groundwater.
Which accounts for 1/2 of 1% of US Electricity production.or this way
So.....
.....maybe a better use of social resources ($$$$) would be try work on ways to enhance the generation of renewable energy - - - - rather than....what is being done now.Maybe
