Tesla Drama

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by mikeyd

Tesla seem to be holding a pretty good hand, the tie up with Lotus and access to the finest chassis combinations available anywhere (VVA/APX for their Model S/ and the Evora platform for their 2012 911 turbo competitor. Tesla announces electric Evora?
The Mercedes link for the Smart EV looks really promising too.
There probably are other players but where are they?
Tesla seem to have a viable and conservative business model which will see them graduate from speciality niche products to eventual mass production - the major stumbling block to their progress appears to be cash flow closely followed by battery technology and according to some of the scientific articles I've been reading we are very close to several battery tech. breakthroughs.
The case for federal financial support of a strategic emerging industry is compelling too - throw money away with GM or invest in a bright future with Tesla? I personally think it would be unforgivable for the Federal Gov to let Tesla sink while propping up any part of GM.
my $.02
Apologies if this is wandering off the thread topic, divorces and lawsuits between business partners are ugly, I hope they sort it out without damaging Tesla. Tesla is bigger than any of the personalities involved. It would be a tragedy if this caused Tesla damage.

There are a number of EV producers that range anywhere from fraudulent (zap) to marginally entrenched (toyota) and everywhere between. toyota may not have a pure EV but the prius has given them a tremendous amount of real world experience in producing *large* numbers of EV components as well as assembly of hybrid EV platforms.

Tesla has none of this: they are really more of a systems integrator in that they have someone make the battery, someone else make the drive train, have lotus make the car, and then put the parts together. they also havent been able to demonstrate scaling of production and economies of scale which are the two *most* important things to show if you are going to ever build the number of cars needed to truly move forward. right now tesla is basically like AC propulsion, an emerging company in an emerging market. Yes they have promise but no (real) experience.

I agree with you about the mercedes EV. if anyone can do EV big and right its mercedes and they are pursuing the alternative fuels segment in a pretty big way. The big difference of course is that tesla will *never* build anything for mercedes. As I have said before, mercedes is going to use tesla for their strategic partners and then gut the company when they finaly get the chance.

Finally, Ive said it before and ill say it again... if the govt wants to give tesla money then make them partner with whats left (salvageable) of GM. no building a new factory when gm has them sitting idle along with a labor pool that will work for less (and they also actually have experience in building large numbers of cars)

[rob13572468]

Originally Posted by AgentTripleX

.... firmware bugs.

now that i would like to hear about...

[mikeyd]

Originally Posted by fitfan

#1 producer of enviromental pollution is NOT cars, we (as humans) have our priorities misplaced putting so much focus on that and virtually ignoring buildings. not to say development of electrical drivetrains in cars is bad... just woefully missing the forest for the tree.

i could also really care less about Tesla - even the name is a silly hijack. i guess its kinda 'cool' but not real car. so much more interested in the Fisker. or for that matter the didge ev europa is more compelling to me than the boutique tesla.

Agree with you completely on the environmental argument - 'CO2 causing global warming' - is utterly bogus IMO.

The reason I NOW like EVs (and Tesla) and think they're heading in the right direction is because very soon most/all of our electricity will (reportedly) be solar generated and very cheap -batteries will be lighter and stronger- and consequently most new vehicles will likely be electric.
It's started in a big way already in Europe with electric delivery trucks, buses, city cars etc. The number of EVs has been consistently doubling every 12 months, and in another 9 doublings (or 9 years) they will be the most common vehicle around.
There's also the strategic argument - oil @ $150pr.brl. meant a net outflow from the US economy of $1 trillion per year, mostly to countries we'd rather not give money to.
The US could very easily be self sufficient in energy by going solar, and would then be self sufficient in Texas oil.
I reckon it's inevitable that the government will incentivize EVs through taxes-(gasoline taxes are my guess).
My guess is that in 50 years the only viable vehicles still using gas will be antique Lotus Elises.

[AgentTripleX]

Originally Posted by rob13572468

now that i would like to hear about...

If you plunk down a deposit you can have access to the Tesla Owner's forum, to see what owners are experiencing. Although, I think it's heavily moderated.

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by mikeyd

Agree with you completely on the environmental argument - 'CO2 causing global warming' - is utterly bogus IMO.

I agree with your statement, but I don't think this is where fitfan was going. He was stating that autos aren't a leading driver of CO2 emissions, the power plants powering the buildings he referenced are. Autos are just an easy target, IMO.

And, ironically, where are most of the raw materials for batteries mined and the batteries themselves made - China; another country to which we really don't want our money going. We have to stop environmentalists from overruling sound energy and production policy if we want to stop the outflow of US dollars to countries who don't have our best interests at heart. Perhaps that's by design?

[fitfan]

^^ both are true - even if you discard the co2=global warming thing entirely. then building are still the #1 consumer of our energy resources (2/3 of all electricity produced and in the us a good majority of that is coal - case in point upstate ny enviromental toxins from energy production killing just about everything living there). your average honda if so efficent emisison and economy wise, the enviromental impact to achiver greater has minimal impact.

man made emmision are not bogus, they are real. the impact of thoose emisison is debatable, but the fact they have an impact is not (how much, not if). so we are faced with a displaced emmision issue more than a car pollution one. buildings don't have a "tail pipe" so as was mentioned - cars are an easy "visable" target. but more stringent regulation is drops i nthe bucket compared to other areas of focus where major return can be had.

very true that electrical drive system will greatly imrpove in the next 10 years. so thats good. we can not be fully independant on solar PV / wind (renewable / clean) power until we solve our consumtion issues, reduce those, and then PV/wind supply becomes more vaible. ( - you can not run an office building on the PV that would fit on its roof - the current bldg 'model' consumes more than the pv on site could produce)

so if we can reduce our building energy consumption to anything even close to net zero (the cool aid about cars) we suddenly have an energy surplus of a huge magnitude. then - ev's on a mass scale become viable. most of our car issues are social / cultural - not technological.

...of course america is rooted in the murder of anyone who believed in living in harmony with the enviroment we rely on to live. so i am not overly optimistic.

....sorry for that last bit -a philosophical rant

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by fitfan

man made emmision are not bogus, they are real. the impact of thoose emisison is debatable, but the fact they have an impact is not (how much, not if). so we are faced with a displaced emmision issue more than a car pollution one. buildings don't have a "tail pipe" so as was mentioned - cars are an easy "visable" target. but more stringent regulation is drops i nthe bucket compared to other areas of focus where major return can be had.

Never said that emissions the were bogus; however, I do think that those emissions are not responsible in the manner in which they are being portrayed. We have little, if any, role in 'global warming' or 'climate change'; to think otherwise gives man far more power over his environment than he could ever hope to have, IMO. However, it is a nice political football and an easy way to blame the US for various problems. As it is, coal is targeted (again, IMO) because it is our most abundant resource. We could have been building nuclear plants a la France for the past 30 years, but no...

[fitfan]

Originally Posted by Icedog_16

Never said that emissions the were bogus; however, I do think that those emissions are not responsible in the manner in which they are being portrayed. We have little, if any, role in 'global warming' or 'climate change'; to think otherwise gives man far more power over his environment than he could ever hope to have, IMO. However, it is a nice political football and an easy way to blame the US for various problems. As it is, coal is targeted (again, IMO) because it is our most abundant resource. We could have been building nuclear plants a la France for the past 30 years, but no...

absolutly did not mean to imply that was what you ment either

what i ment is that even if you take away any climate change issues - the enviromental impact on power production in the US is significant for pollution / toxins.

agree that the climate change is too complex for any current theories to be 'proven' other than micro urban climates. but again these are pollutant issue (aka LA /mex city / upstate ny)

and as you mentioned... when was the last nuke plant built in the US... talk about 'life cycle' issue !! we are very far behind the times.
not only in how we produce electricity, but the efficency at wich we consume it.

[IamBatman]

does anyone know how much weight in hydrocarbons (oil, coal, natural gas) the world pump from the ground annually? How much of that is burned and released into the atmosphere? How much is that compared to the total mass of the atmosphere? how much of an increase in "green house gas" will it take to increase the average temperature to say.. 1F degrees?
I don't want to get into another global warming thread... but I'm interested in the numbers.

as far as electric power, I think the wave of the future is decentralized power generation. Smaller natural gas power plants, supplemented by rooftop solar and wind generation. Less transmission losses, smaller initial investment, less chance of catastrophic failures and energy price fluctuation.

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

Originally Posted by IamBatman

does anyone know how much weight in hydrocarbons (oil, coal, natural gas) the world pump from the ground annually? How much of that is burned and released into the atmosphere? How much is that compared to the total mass of the atmosphere? how much of an increase in "green house gas" will it take to increase the average temperature to say.. 1F degrees?
I don't want to get into another global warming thread... but I'm interested in the numbers.

as far as electric power, I think the wave of the future is decentralized power generation. Smaller natural gas power plants, supplemented by rooftop solar and wind generation. Less transmission losses, smaller initial investment, less chance of catastrophic failures and energy price fluctuation.

For anything but solar, the big plants seem to be more efficient IIRC

[IamBatman]

for coal, maybe diesels, yes... but a properly designed natural gas generator will be extremely efficient and clean regardless of size. it won't need the scrubbing or the emissions controls of the coal or diesel plants.

[Aedo]

Originally Posted by IamBatman

does anyone know how much weight in hydrocarbons (oil, coal, natural gas) the world pump from the ground annually? How much of that is burned and released into the atmosphere? How much is that compared to the total mass of the atmosphere? how much of an increase in "green house gas" will it take to increase the average temperature to say.. 1F degrees?
I don't want to get into another global warming thread... but I'm interested in the numbers.

Have a browse through the wikipedia energy portal Portal:Energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for an idea of some number - you need to think BIG!

Originally Posted by IamBatman

as far as electric power, I think the wave of the future is decentralized power generation. Smaller natural gas power plants, supplemented by rooftop solar and wind generation. Less transmission losses, smaller initial investment, less chance of catastrophic failures and energy price fluctuation.

You are describing "distributed generation" (DG) which is the fastest growing sector of the energy market

Originally Posted by MyFutureSelfnMe

For anything but solar, the big plants seem to be more efficient IIRC

DG is analogous to personal computers vs mainframes. Once everyone used mainframes because they were so much more powerful than personal computers. As personal computers have become more powerful (even though mainframes are still better) more computing is done locally than centrally. You are right in that to move power generation away from the centralised system requires efficiency in small generation - which is where mCHP comes in - micro Combined Heat and Power. There are a number of small scale (single household size) mCHP units in early production and in R&D - these systems are actually significantly more efficient than the grid and centralised power (but are not mass market... yet!) - I'm looking forward to having control of my own powerstation

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by Icedog_16

Never said that emissions the were bogus; however, I do think that those emissions are not responsible in the manner in which they are being portrayed. We have little, if any, role in 'global warming' or 'climate change'; to think otherwise gives man far more power over his environment than he could ever hope to have, IMO. However, it is a nice political football and an easy way to blame the US for various problems. As it is, coal is targeted (again, IMO) because it is our most abundant resource. We could have been building nuclear plants a la France for the past 30 years, but no...

+1. The fact that some are buying into Tesla for environmental reasons even though the car is charged by coal-based electricity is hilarious.

[Cardinal]

Originally Posted by IamBatman

does anyone know how much weight in hydrocarbons (oil, coal, natural gas) the world pump from the ground annually? How much of that is burned and released into the atmosphere? How much is that compared to the total mass of the atmosphere? how much of an increase in "green house gas" will it take to increase the average temperature to say.. 1F degrees?
I don't want to get into another global warming thread... but I'm interested in the numbers.

I'm not sure if anyone knows with ~100% certainty how much greenhouse emission it would take to warm the Earth by 1ºF. As you hinted at, the way to answer that is not by measuring output, but rather by measuring the overall non-water vapor greenhouse gas % of our atmosphere. CO2 content is under 0.39% of our atmosphere. If we could find a way to break the habit of mideast oil, it would be best for us. The positive eco-karma of an electric car is a sham as long as it's plugged into a coal plant.

[apk919]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

+1. The fact that some are buying into Tesla for environmental reasons even though the car is charged by coal-based electricity is hilarious.

+2

It's all about taxing non-favored industries and handing the money over to favored ones.

And how "favored" you are depends on how much political clout you have, which in turn depends on who you're paying off (politicians, lobbyists).

[IamBatman]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

+1. The fact that some are buying into Tesla for environmental reasons even though the car is charged by coal-based electricity is hilarious.

Energy Maps of California

it depends on where you live I guess

[IamBatman]

Originally Posted by Cardinal

I'm not sure if anyone knows with ~100% certainty how much greenhouse emission it would take to warm the Earth by 1ºF. As you hinted at, the way to answer that is not by measuring output, but rather by measuring the overall non-water vapor greenhouse gas % of our atmosphere. CO2 content is under 0.39% of our atmosphere.

so how much does an increase of say, .01% co2 does to the global temperature? I'm just trying to wrap my head around some numbers.
I just read on aedo's link (thanks!) about feedback affects where a slight increase in temperature will increase the water content in the air (which is another green house gas), and decrease the ability of ocean water to absorb C02. It seems like its more of a complex mechanism then I had originally thought.

It seems a lot of people are pretty convinced one way or the other and they will not be convinced no matter what the other side says. (and it seems to fall along political party lines..) I'm leaning towards the thinking that the negatives of doing nothing is far bigger then the short term costs of converting to other options. Even if you don't buy the global warming argument, just the fact that we're paying hostile countries billions for a diminishing resource is enough of a reason to be looking at alternatives to oil.

personally I don't think pure electric is the way to go, but I love the idea of a diesel torque monster with KERS power assist for a sports car, and plug in hybrid bio diesel powered by electricity generated in from my own roof.

[Aedo]

Originally Posted by IamBatman

Energy Maps of California

it depends on where you live I guess

Good map - pity though that the icons aren't sized according to generator output.

[IamBatman]

I'm surprised by the amount of biomass, digester gas and landfill gas plants in CA, I guess we Californians do generate a lot of methane!

[apk919]

Originally Posted by Aedo

Good map - pity though that the icons aren't sized according to generator output.

Hydrocarbons still rule... (with apologies to Dragon)