Jump to content
  • Custom Search


mlhm5

2000 Mile Road Trip In A Tesla Model 3

Recommended Posts

If you want something badly enough you can rationalize all sorts of reasons why it's better.

100% BEVs won't be practical for another decade at least.

Selling BEVs to those who want them and PHEVs to everyone else in the meantime is the absolute best solution.

Arguing that we have to go to 100% BEVs now is stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, akirby said:

But if a 30 or 50 mile range PHEV covers 90% of the public’s normal driving in EV mode with the ability to go anywhere at any time using the ICE then why are pure BEVs better?

No maintenance of an ICE. No extra costs/weight of the ICE.  I suspect 90% of the people out there would presently  have no problem with a 300 mile range and a fast charging network.  Once we start seeing a 400 mile range plus super fast charging  say 50% in 15 minutes is will only be a question of costs before BEV's take over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, 92merc said:

I have to disagree.  All you are doing is SHIFTING the emissions from the tail pipe over to a power plant.  Since most power plants are still carbon based, you've only shuffled the deck.

Yes, better power plant options are coming online.  Wind, solar, etc.  But I seriously doubt any nuclear plants will get built any time soon.  Not until they can come up with a way to guarantee we won't have another Fukishima on our hands.

By "shifting" emissions you are making it possible for a BEV you buy  today to actually be cleaner tomorrow.  Also, a lot of people who buy BEV's also put solar on their house.  California currently has 4% of its electricity being produced by coal (mostly imported)  That is half of what it was 5 years ago and Within 6 years that will be zero and in 25 years  California will have zero electricity from carbon sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, msm859 said:

 I suspect 90% of the people out there would presently  have no problem with a 300 mile range and a fast charging network. 

Maybe in California.  Not in the rest of the country. 

The other issue is price.  A 300 mile range now costs $40K-$50K and even at that price it's not profitable.   For long term sustainability you'd need to be able to sell $25K - $30K vehicles AND turn a profit and that's not happening for at least a few more years.

PHEVs could reduce gas and emissions by up to 90% now, they can be made profitably now and they require no infrastructure other than a home charger.   But hey, don't let a good solution ruin your problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, msm859 said:

By "shifting" emissions you are making it possible for a BEV you buy  today to actually be cleaner tomorrow.  Also, a lot of people who buy BEV's also put solar on their house.  California currently has 4% of its electricity being produced by coal (mostly imported)  That is half of what it was 5 years ago and Within 6 years that will be zero and in 25 years  California will have zero electricity from carbon sources.

You want to guess what source of fuel makes up half of the electricity produced in California??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, akirby said:

100% BEVs won't be practical for another decade at least.

The fact that Tesla Model 3 was the best selling domestic brand passenger car in the U.S. late in 2018 suggests otherwise. Tesla has made BEV ownership practical already by not only designing and engineering excellent cars. But also investing in fast charging infrastructure (Supercharger) and in-vehicle services that make it easy for customers to find charging points and plan their routes accordingly.

The big question is: Will automakers other than Tesla make a similar commitment to expand fast charging infrastructure and in-vehicle services to go along with the scores of new BEV models they plan to release in the next 4 or 5 years?

If the answer is yes, it will take a lot less than 10 years for 100% BEVs from many different automakers to be practical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, twintornados said:

You want to guess what source of fuel makes up half of the electricity produced in California??

Probably natural gas.  I'm sure here in ND we'll be ditching most of our remaining coal for natural gas as we have plenty of gas available from the Bakken.

A big issue for me being in North Dakota is there is no charging infrastructure here. And being a low population center, it's not likely we'll be getting one anytime soon.  Considering almost every population center is 100 miles apart, a BEV will only be good for traveling near the city you are in and the surrounding area.  I couldn't even take a BEV today from my town to my parents town to visit them without having to do a charge in between.  So a PHEV is at best the only solution in my rural state.  And I don't foresee that changing for at least 10 years or more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, akirby said:

If you want something badly enough you can rationalize all sorts of reasons why it's better.

100% BEVs won't be practical for another decade at least.

Selling BEVs to those who want them and PHEVs to everyone else in the meantime is the absolute best solution.

Arguing that we have to go to 100% BEVs now is stupid.

This.

 

Nobody is necessarily saying that BEVs aren't a good/viable long term solution.  It's the notion that "WE NEED BEVs NOWWWWWWW and nothing else will do, ban everything else!!!!!!!" that most of us have a problem with.  For most people, BEVs are not a realistic option right now for a variety of reasons.......vehicle cost, charging infrastructure, charging times, vehicle profitability, etc.  Will they get there?  I'm sure!  As tech evolves and advancements are made, I'm sure the cost of BEVs will come down, but it's not there yet.

In the short to mid term/as a transition, PHEVs represent a perfect balance of the range/refueling pros of ICEs, with the city electric/emissions reductions/power, etc of BEVs.  In other words, you get the benefits of electric without the drawbacks (perceived or otherwise).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rperez817 said:

The fact that Tesla Model 3 was the best selling domestic brand passenger car in the U.S. late in 2018 suggests otherwise. Tesla has made BEV ownership practical already by not only designing and engineering excellent cars. But also investing in fast charging infrastructure (Supercharger) and in-vehicle services that make it easy for customers to find charging points and plan their routes accordingly.

The big question is: Will automakers other than Tesla make a similar commitment to expand fast charging infrastructure and in-vehicle services to go along with the scores of new BEV models they plan to release in the next 4 or 5 years?

If the answer is yes, it will take a lot less than 10 years for 100% BEVs from many different automakers to be practical.

Do you know why they’re not investing like Tesla?  Because they’re trying to make a profit and stay in business.  They don’t have the luxury of a slick salesman who can continue bilking investors and sell carbon credits while losing money on vehicles left and right,  For Tesla to stay in business they need to raise their prices at least $10k and then lets see what that does to sales.  

Tesla’s current model is unsustainable and major mfrs are not going to lose a lot of money trying to follow them.  They’ll create BEVs and platforms so they’re ready as costs fall and demand rises naturally.  They’ll build charging infrastructure but they’ll do it within financial constraints and keep costs lower.

To think otherwise is to bury your head in the sand and ignore the most obvious warning signs.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, akirby said:

Maybe in California.  Not in the rest of the country. 

The other issue is price.  A 300 mile range now costs $40K-$50K and even at that price it's not profitable.   For long term sustainability you'd need to be able to sell $25K - $30K vehicles AND turn a profit and that's not happening for at least a few more years.

PHEVs could reduce gas and emissions by up to 90% now, they can be made profitably now and they require no infrastructure other than a home charger.   But hey, don't let a good solution ruin your problem.

Umm for the record I have already stated that if the Aviator gets at least 30 miles electric range I am buying.  It will be replacing a 2017 Explorer Platinum. I agree PHEV's may be a good stepping stone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, twintornados said:

You want to guess what source of fuel makes up half of the electricity produced in California??

Yes.  Non carbon based fuel makes up over half of the electricity produced "commercially".  This does not include ALL of the houses (including mine) that have their own solar. Last year my electric bill was zero.  This year it has gone up because of adding electric consumption - electric dryer in upstairs laundry room, heat pump water heater for domestic hot water and extended guests because of the fires in norther California.  I am increasing my solar by 10%.  to bring it back down and to have some to feed my future plug in something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, 92merc said:

I have to disagree.  All you are doing is SHIFTING the emissions from the tail pipe over to a power plant.  Since most power plants are still carbon based, you've only shuffled the deck.

Yes, better power plant options are coming online.  Wind, solar, etc.  But I seriously doubt any nuclear plants will get built any time soon.  Not until they can come up with a way to guarantee we won't have another Fukishima on our hands.

I don't have the link near at hand, but I've read in several journals that this is, surprisingly, not true. At least I was surprised when I read up on it. Electric motors are so freakishly efficient that an electric car charged by a coal power plant puts out fewer pollutants than an ICE vehicle powered by (somewhat) less dirty gasoline.

Ok, here's one link. I Googled "electric cars powered by coal," and tons of articles appeared making this point. There are still downsides to BEVs, which is one reason why I don't own one. Like lots of folks, I don't live where I can do overnight charging, which pretty much makes it a non-starter for me. For others, there are the issues of higher initial costs, battery losses in cold climates, trip planning issues, charging times. But the argument that owning an electric car merely shifts pollution from the tail pipe to the smoke stack isn't one of them.

All those downsides, except for the physics of cold weather, are steadily improving.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

I don't have the link near at hand, but I've read in several journals that this is, surprisingly, not true. At least I was surprised when I read up on it. Electric motors are so freakishly efficient that an electric car charged by a coal power plant puts out fewer pollutants than an ICE vehicle powered by (somewhat) less dirty gasoline.

Ok, here's one link. I Googled "electric cars powered by coal," and tons of articles appeared making this point. There are still downsides to BEVs, which is one reason why I don't own one. Like lots of folks, I don't live where I can do overnight charging, which pretty much makes it a non-starter for me. For others, there are the issues of higher initial costs, battery losses in cold climates, trip planning issues, charging times. But the argument that owning an electric car merely shifts pollution from the tail pipe to the smoke stack isn't one of them.

All those downsides, except for the physics of cold weather, are steadily improving.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal

Another thing to consider is the pollution created in the processes needed to make and support electric vehicles.   The mining of the rare earth metals for batteries typically strips an area of all good soil, or it contaminates it.  On top of it, many of the "new" generation of electric motors are using rare earth metals for their magnets.  SO more strip mining.  There was an article I had read awhile ago that the Tesla S used a different magnetic field generating via standard copper.  So that was better.  But the Model 3 uses the rare earth metals.

Plus, take a look a "clean" energy wind farms.  Guess what?  They too use rare earth metals in the making of their magnets.

Here's an article looking at carbon created for a vehicle life to death.  Guess what was #1?

https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1096381_2015-ford-f-150-has-lowest-lifecycle-carbon-footprint-study

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Gurgeh said:

I don't have the link near at hand, but I've read in several journals that this is, surprisingly, not true. At least I was surprised when I read up on it. Electric motors are so freakishly efficient that an electric car charged by a coal power plant puts out fewer pollutants than an ICE vehicle powered by (somewhat) less dirty gasoline.

Ok, here's one link. I Googled "electric cars powered by coal," and tons of articles appeared making this point. There are still downsides to BEVs, which is one reason why I don't own one. Like lots of folks, I don't live where I can do overnight charging, which pretty much makes it a non-starter for me. For others, there are the issues of higher initial costs, battery losses in cold climates, trip planning issues, charging times. But the argument that owning an electric car merely shifts pollution from the tail pipe to the smoke stack isn't one of them.

All those downsides, except for the physics of cold weather, are steadily improving.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-15/electric-cars-seen-getting-cleaner-even-where-grids-rely-on-coal

 

That brought up a good point - a lot of people live in apartment complexes or condos where they can't just put a charger in so they can charge at night.  Newer construction may have some chargers installed, but it's not an option for some.  I have a buddy who was considering a Model 3 as his next car before he moved.  But he moved to a condo with outdoor parking lot where he has no way to charge an electric car, so the 3 is out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, rmc523 said:

 

That brought up a good point - a lot of people live in apartment complexes or condos where they can't just put a charger in so they can charge at night.  Newer construction may have some chargers installed, but it's not an option for some.  I have a buddy who was considering a Model 3 as his next car before he moved.  But he moved to a condo with outdoor parking lot where he has no way to charge an electric car, so the 3 is out.

Or, how many homes are going to be able to handle more than one car charging at a time?  If it takes a 50 amp, most people won't have a panel in their homes that can add another 100 amps to charge 2 cars at once.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, 92merc said:

Or, how many homes are going to be able to handle more than one car charging at a time?  If it takes a 50 amp, most people won't have a panel in their homes that can add another 100 amps to charge 2 cars at once.

Actually it shouldn't be much of a problem.  Most level 2 chargers are 32 amps and you can schedule the time of charging. (I had mentioned 50 amp breakers which would allow a 40 amp charger - continuous load factor)  A 200 amp main is pretty common and you could charge at the same time or stagger them.  With a level 2 charger you are adding @25-30 miles per hour of charging, so most days you would actually only need to charge a few hours.  Agree though it could be a problem for apartment dwellers.  California does have some laws that give them rights but probably need to do more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, msm859 said:

No maintenance of an ICE. No extra costs/weight of the ICE.  I suspect 90% of the people out there would presently  have no problem with a 300 mile range and a fast charging network.  Once we start seeing a 400 mile range plus super fast charging  say 50% in 15 minutes is will only be a question of costs before BEV's take over.

Tesla Model S (base w/AWD) is slightly heavier than BMW 740e Hybrid and Audi A8, despite being significantly smaller otherwise than either of those cars.
Nissan Leaf weighs about the same as the upcoming Escape Hybrid, despite the latter being appreciably bigger.

Electric motors and batteries are not inexpensive, and they definitely don't save as much weight as you're insinuating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, msm859 said:

A 200 amp main is pretty common and you could charge at the same time or stagger them.

Only on new construction.  And even then, it's not as common as you think.  On a higher end home yes.  But on a basic middle class home, 150 amp is still the norm around here.

I had opted for a 200 amp right away with the thoughts of possibly using dual fuel for heat.  IE gas/electric combo.  I didn't go that route.  But I wanted the option to.  In the end, I'll probably utilize it more for a charger in my garage, "someday"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 92merc said:

Only on new construction.  And even then, it's not as common as you think.  On a higher end home yes.  But on a basic middle class home, 150 amp is still the norm around here.

I had opted for a 200 amp right away with the thoughts of possibly using dual fuel for heat.  IE gas/electric combo.  I didn't go that route.  But I wanted the option to.  In the end, I'll probably utilize it more for a charger in my garage, "someday"...

Perhaps it depends on what part of the country you are in.  My house is 15 years old and has a 200amp  main panel.  But even a 150 amp panel would be plenty.  A. Nissan Leaf uses 30 amps for a level 2 home charger.  And since you can plug in every night mostly you will be "topping off".  Tesla chargers allow you to pick the amps you want to use to charge if you have. limitations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, rmc523 said:

 

That brought up a good point - a lot of people live in apartment complexes or condos where they can't just put a charger in so they can charge at night.  Newer construction may have some chargers installed, but it's not an option for some.  I have a buddy who was considering a Model 3 as his next car before he moved.  But he moved to a condo with outdoor parking lot where he has no way to charge an electric car, so the 3 is out.

In Canada, the government is suggesting adding charging stations to the building code. If it passes  ALL new homes  condos, towers etc would have to install these at point of construction.

 

No word on retrofitting existing apartments and condos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, J-150 said:

In Canada, the government is suggesting adding charging stations to the building code. If it passes  ALL new homes  condos, towers etc would have to install these at point of construction.

 

No word on retrofitting existing apartments and condos.

California already requires the infrastructure to be in on all new homes and other buildings to make it simpler to add later.  Having the conduit and large enough panel will make for simple additions when the homeowner wants it.  In 2020 new homes will also have to have solar - unless there is too much of a shading issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/10/2019 at 11:18 AM, msm859 said:
Quote

Natural gas-fired power plants typically account for more than one-half of in-state electricity generation. California is one of the largest hydroelectric power producers in the United States, and with adequate rainfall, hydroelectric power typically accounts for close to one-fifth of State electricity generation. Due to strict emission laws, only one coal-fired power plant still operates in California, the 63 MW Argus Cogeneration plant in San Bernardino County

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California

Edited by twintornados

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, twintornados said:

Graph from that article says msm859 is correct. Non carbon based fuel sources account for more than half of electricity generated by California commercial and municipal power generating stations last year.

800px-California_Electricity_Generation_

Edited by rperez817

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×