Tesla Drama

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by IamBatman

not 10 times, but 2x...
Internal combustion engines in cars are very inefficent because they have to work though a big RPM range. Power Plants that burn hydrocarbons runs at the RPM of Peak efficiency: Electric motors are also more efficient though out a big range of RPMs. Also, the power plant & transmission line argument goes away when people convert to point of us Solar/wind power generation.


Processing EVs & Power Plants: 39% (Electricity Generation) | ICE & Fuel Refining92% (Fuel Refining)
Transmission Lines: EVs & Power Plants 95% | ICE & Fuel Refining-N/A
Charging EVs & Power Plants 88%| ICE & Fuel Refining-N/A
Vehicle Efficiency: EVs & Power Plants 88% | ICE & Fuel Refining 15%
Overall Efficiency: EVs & Power Plants 28% | ICE & Fuel Refining 14%

this is only comparing EVs to ICEs, because the calculation for a hybrid/plug-in hybrid is much more complicated.

Care to show where you got your figures? They don't jive with those from the mechanical engineering publication or other sources I've seen. For that matter, it would be nice to see where they got their figures - for instance, US DoE shows power plants as 33% efficient and transmission as 90.5% efficient (GridWorks: Overview of the Electric Grid). Showing the assumptions they used and their work would be nice as well.

With respect to converting to home solar and wind, those will need to be much more efficient and less costly for those to even be considered - I'd have to cover my entire roof in solar panels just to meet my day-to-day needs (not including an EV) and at a considerable cost. Also, last I checked, the sun's only out about half the day assuming no clouds (the half-day you'd be at work, which means you'll have to have a means of storage) and the wind doesn't blow 24/7. As it is, people who have put wind turbines on their properties have pissed off their neighbors with the noise turbines make and there are possible health concerns (http://www.viewsofscotland.org/libra...sehealth-1.pdf) - that last thing may be a bit of a stretch IMO, but it's not without at least some merit and I don't know about you but my nearest neighbor is much closer to being within 2m then they are the mandatory 2km recommended by that study.

[ChrisB]

Originally Posted by IamBatman

have you ever heard of "moore's law"? I'm not saying solar power efficiency development will increase the same rate as transistor density, but I wouldn't assume the rate of efficiency increase will decline exponentially.

I am quite familiar with Moore's law. So far solar power technology has not come anywhere near the progression of the transistor. And, I don't expect that it ever will. I also don't expect that its technological progression will taper off. The doubling point was regarding the roll-out of solar power. When you start from near zero and start rolling it out, it happens where it is cheap and easy. The rate of adoption is high. When it gets to the more difficult to roll out areas (i.e. costly and/or impractical), it does not happen as fast and the adoption rate will slow down.

When the technology gets to the point where panels small enough to fit on a car will power it without needing a recharge, then you've got something that will completely change private transportation. In the meantime, I think plug-in hybrids will be the practical alternative to pure IC propulsion. Pure electrics will make some inroads as commuter vehicles, but IMHO, that will be it for the foreseeable future.

[IamBatman]

Originally Posted by ChrisB

I am quite familiar with Moore's law. So far solar power technology has not come anywhere near the progression of the transistor. And, I don't expect that it ever will. I also don't expect that its technological progression will taper off. The doubling point was regarding the roll-out of solar power. When you start from near zero and start rolling it out, it happens where it is cheap and easy. The rate of adoption is high. When it gets to the more difficult to roll out areas (i.e. costly and/or impractical), it does not happen as fast and the adoption rate will slow down.

When the technology gets to the point where panels small enough to fit on a car will power it without needing a recharge, then you've got something that will completely change private transportation. In the meantime, I think plug-in hybrids will be the practical alternative to pure IC propulsion. Pure electrics will make some inroads as commuter vehicles, but IMHO, that will be it for the foreseeable future.

lets step back a minute, are you talking about adoption growth or efficiency growth? I see solar as a small part of the solution. so I don't think 100% adoption is realistic, maybe 25-50% is a good goal. As far as efficiency, I know an old guy in the Sunset district of SF that was one of the early adopters of photovoltaic power. He pays like $30 a year for electricity with his 10yr old array, in an area of SF known for fog and overcast weather. Its not even that big of an array. Do I think its realistic to have solar cells that powers cars without batteries? Absolutely not, but inexpensive solar panels that charges plug-in hybrids are a realistic goal.

[IamBatman]

Originally Posted by Icedog_16

Care to show where you got your figures? They don't jive with those from the mechanical engineering publication or other sources I've seen. For that matter, it would be nice to see where they got their figures - for instance, US DoE shows power plants as 33% efficient and transmission as 90.5% efficient (GridWorks: Overview of the Electric Grid). Showing the assumptions they used and their work would be nice as well.

Electro Automotive: FAQ on Electric Car Efficiency & Pollution
also in the GridWorks link you posted, the 33% efficiency refers to large plants. later on in the next paragraph it mentions distributed energy facilities having the efficiency of 65-90% (as of 2001). you are also assuming all of the power generated by power plants use fossil fuels, there was a chart posted earlier that shows a large percentage of CA electricity is generated with renewable resources.

Originally Posted by Icedog_16

With respect to converting to home solar and wind, those will need to be much more efficient and less costly for those to even be considered - I'd have to cover my entire roof in solar panels just to meet my day-to-day needs (not including an EV) and at a considerable cost. Also, last I checked, the sun's only out about half the day assuming no clouds (the half-day you'd be at work, which means you'll have to have a means of storage) and the wind doesn't blow 24/7. As it is, people who have put wind turbines on their properties have pissed off their neighbors with the noise turbines make and there are possible health concerns (http://www.viewsofscotland.org/libra...sehealth-1.pdf) - that last thing may be a bit of a stretch IMO, but it's not without at least some merit and I don't know about you but my nearest neighbor is much closer to being within 2m then they are the mandatory 2km recommended by that study.

old school wind turbines make a lot of noise, and is actually dangerous in the colder areas because they throw ice as they spin. Then new generation of helical windmills don't have the noise issue, it maxes out at a moderate RPM, doesn't care which direction the wind blows, and looks pretty cool.
Helix Wind

YouTube - Helix Wind Turbine

as far as efficiency, both solar and wind power is ready now. As I mentioned earlier, if a guy in foggy SF can make his old panel work, then it should work in a majority of the places. All it takes is to get the cost down and incentive for adoption.

[Aedo]

Originally Posted by MyFutureSelfnMe

The mainframe doesn't seem like a perfect analogy because it disregards the significantly greater energy consumption of PCs vs. terminals. PCs are rather inefficient beasts.

The analogy is the functional output of the system - we demand power in computing, which PCs now deliver; the equivalent metric in power generation is efficiency - which distributed power systems are only now able to achieve.

Originally Posted by mikeyd

I don't understand why there is even any debate about which energy to use.
Solar energy is completely FREE, Completely clean, inexhaustible, easily collected, easily stored, requires no raw materials.
...

Easily collected - well not so much yet...
Easily stored - no. In fact storage of electricity is one of the biggest challenges the wind/wave/solar generation systems face. Storage at any reasonable useful scale is extremely expensive.

Originally Posted by tko211

I am so over the TESLA. It's a great project that has it's place in terms of trail blazing new technology but... Seems like an early adopter sport car thing. Reminds me of Lazer discs, Really large and very expensive microwaves of the early 80's. Wait a few years and get something that is lots cheaper, works as good or even better.

And this is why we have cheap CD/DVD players and cheap microwaves today - someone was willing to adopt the initial high cost/modest performance versions thus providing some cashflow and enabling the development of lower cost mass produced versions

Originally Posted by IamBatman

...
Processing EVs & Power Plants: 39% (Electricity Generation) | ICE & Fuel Refining92% (Fuel Refining)
Transmission Lines: EVs & Power Plants 95% | ICE & Fuel Refining-N/A
Charging EVs & Power Plants 88%| ICE & Fuel Refining-N/A
Vehicle Efficiency: EVs & Power Plants 88% | ICE & Fuel Refining 15%
Overall Efficiency: EVs & Power Plants 28% | ICE & Fuel Refining 14%

The 14% for ICE vehicles seems too low to me - modern ICE vehicles are more like 25% efficient with an overall efficiency of ~20%

Originally Posted by IamBatman

CNG burns much cleaner and more efficient then gasoline. There also aren't not that many CNG cars on the road, so I'm not sure why they used that as an example... keep in mind that interest in developing hybrid,battery,solar and other green technologies have only started the last 5-10 years, so to dismiss it before it even started or to compare it to a well established technology is a little premature

They seemed to use CNG as a base for that study but left out petrol

In terms of development of green technologies despite them not being in actual production yet modelling can be done to show what they are theoretically capable of by taking best case developments of future technology. One of these studies demonstrated that the most theoretically efficient hydrogen fuel cell hybrid will not reach the same well to wheels efficiency a current generation Prius!

[IamBatman]

Originally Posted by Aedo

The 14% for ICE vehicles seems too low to me - modern ICE vehicles are more like 25% efficient with an overall efficiency of ~20%

I have no idea, maybe modern engines are more efficient but there are plenty of 80s and 90s cars still around.
even if you use your numbers, electric is more efficient. the original argument someone brought up was if you combine power generation, transmission and conversion, ICE was more efficient. I just wanted to show its simply not true, and modern ICE is terribly inefficient.

This is not even factoring in the advantage of significant % use of renewable power generation vs burning pure fossil fuel, and the advantage of regenerative braking in electric/hybrid cars.

[ChrisB]

Originally Posted by IamBatman

lets step back a minute, are you talking about adoption growth or efficiency growth? I see solar as a small part of the solution. so I don't think 100% adoption is realistic, maybe 25-50% is a good goal. As far as efficiency, I know an old guy in the Sunset district of SF that was one of the early adopters of photovoltaic power. He pays like $30 a year for electricity with his 10yr old array, in an area of SF known for fog and overcast weather. Its not even that big of an array. Do I think its realistic to have solar cells that powers cars without batteries? Absolutely not, but inexpensive solar panels that charges plug-in hybrids are a realistic goal.

I think the confusion here is that you stepped into an interchange between Mikeyd and I, so your original response to my post was out of context:

Originally Posted by mikeyd

The amount of Solar energy being generated/collected is doubling every 2 years and is just 8 doublings away from fully meeting current needs (i.e. potentially 16 years)

Your first point above, is the point I was expressing to Mikeyd. I don't see the solar generation of power doubling every 2 years until we reach 100% of the electrical needs of the country.

[IamBatman]

Originally Posted by ChrisB

I think the confusion here is that you stepped into an interchange between Mikeyd and I, so your original response to my post was out of context:
.

As far as I can tell, we are in a public forum (and way off topic to the original post) and anyone can express their opinion. I read your post, you didn't make it clear, its not like I jumped into the middle of a private conversation.

[ChrisB]

Originally Posted by IamBatman

As far as I can tell, we are in a public forum (and way off topic to the original post) and anyone can express their opinion. I read your post, you didn't make it clear, its not like I jumped into the middle of a private conversation.

Sorry, I didn't mean it was private, just pointing out that I was responding to the Mikeyd's post, which I quoted, regarding his doubling 8 times to 100% comment. You responded with the Moore's law statement which didn't relate to the original post or my response. I didn't disagree with your post, which quoted mine, just clarifying that it didn't relate to either of the previous posts.

[IamBatman]

[Svetlankas Toy]

Funny facts :Cost of a Roadster is 135-170K.....(This is after adding all the bells and whistles...) Ummmm...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?????? for an overweight Elise that handles like a Karman Ghia???? Ummm...no thanks......

Also, the infamous "S" is not a real car at the moment, (Is a cut and paste job that looks great in photoshop....) IF they DO make it...look at a WORKING prototype around...oh...2012/2013.....MAYBE

(I caught a roadster on the 101S not long ago.....very UNIMPRESSED with what 135-170K does against a stock Exige S......) Not to mention how the wobbly goblin handles in hard turns.....can u say like snot on Teflon????

Between recalls, political infighting, the fact that most of the internal talent is either "Software or Hardware" self proclaimed "experts" who have NO automotive experience.....as well as a disproportionate amount of females who really have no idea what selling a HIGH end car, or running a manufacturing company is...(Agent X being the ONLY exception....)

I will give Tesla a snowballs chance in hell....and that's ONLY because Mercedes Benz gave them a cash infusion which will get them through the next quarter or so before they collapse and go the way of the Yugo......(MBZ is in there just to harvest some R&D treasures, and bootstrap their own hybrid/electric tech...)

As Jim Morrison used to say, "The future is uncertain and the end is always near!"

[IamBatman]

Musk doesn't have what it takes to run a car company. hell, he doesn't have what it takes to run ANY company. He doesn't know how to build cars.
IMHO, Tesla has a very small window of opportunity to stay relevant and they have a perfect track record of NOT meeting ANY one of their engineering goals (dates, performance, range, cost target, etc).

[...m...]

Originally Posted by Svetlankas Toy

Not to mention how the wobbly goblin handles in hard turns.....can u say like **** on Teflon????

...i'd rather not...besides which, it's not that bad - wallowing pig is a perfectly apt description...

Originally Posted by Svetlankas Toy

Between recalls, political infighting, the fact that most of the internal talent is either "Software or Hardware" self proclaimed "experts" who have NO automotive experience.....as well as a disproportionate amount of females who really have no idea what selling a HIGH end car, or running a manufacturing company is...

...now that latter bit is hardly fair; their incompetence is equal-opportunity and has little to do with gender...

...i'd really like to see tesla swept up by competent management, because they've established some credible momentum behind a laudable concept sadly forsaken by the large industrial players a decade ago - whether it's a buyout, a takeover, or a stockholder rebellion, i don't care, i'd just like to see its seed burgeon...

[Svetlankas Toy]

Originally Posted by ...m...

...i'd rather not...besides which, it's not that bad - wallowing pig is a perfectly apt description...

OK, I will give you wallowing pig.....but at the price....I dont expect wallowing pig, I expect TRON turns....

Originally Posted by ...m...

...now that latter bit is hardly fair; their incompetence is equal-opportunity and has little to do with gender...

Mind you I have NOTHING against women in the workplace at ALL....I KNOW some sharp CEO's, CFO's and COO's that are women....But, what I cant deal with is a Director or above that has NO experience in Automotive, Manufacturing or consumer goods (Male or Female)....but worked with so and so at a previous company (Software...) who tells me, "Oh, I don't own a car, I take the train...."
"Motorsports? You mean like NASCAR???? Oh, my husband watches them for the crashes, I don't care for that kind of thing...."

Imagine IF the "C" level at Ferrari, Lamborghini, BMW, Audi, Porsche or Lotus for that matter hired these types of people to produce the cars we love.....

I don't work on my own motors, do my own dental work, or taxes for that matter..not my skill set....I hire an EXPERT in the field to do it....(They should too...not like there are a few THOUSAND out of work Automotive types out their....GM, BMW, Mercedes Benz, Toyota...etc....

Tesla has a life expectancy of.......2 quarters at best....because of mismanagement, and EGO....sucks, but..is FACT....

Maybe MBZ will snatch them up for 100M and make them a performance orientated SMART car...at least then they may get over their MANY quality issues....

(Oh, did I fail to mention they only have 3 service shops world wide...? And the purchase contract states that ANY service issues must be shipped to one of these 3 shops at YOUR dime ($1000 O/W) in order to be handled, or your warranty void?)

I liked the car, the concept, but.....the management reminded me of a certain software company in the late 90's that no longer exists today.....

[mikeyd]

I really didn't see the point of the Tesla roadster until I watched this - It's beautiful!

YouTube - Unwrapping the Tesla and taking it for the first drive

It looks like an Enzo - and it cost 7 times less!
I hope Tesla survives and Elon you are the MAN - you have started an absolutely unique car company and performed a fabulous service to human advancement!
(The video also reminds me of the day I got my Elise).
Really sorry for the Thread drift...

[MyFutureSelfnMe]

It's great to have the discussion back on topic. Tesla and drama are like, er, peas and carrots.

I agree re: Musk and his software background - this is the same thing as Edward Whitacre as CEO of GM. Management needs to know their product. Salesmen need to know their product. Maybe the chef at the cafeteria doesn't need to know the company's product, but there's no such thing as an effective manager that can be plugged n' played into any business like a USB dongle. Incidentally Whitacre is nearly 70 years old and has never used a computer. He probably calls his sofa a davenport. Perfect choice to breathe fresh air and take the company in a new direction.

Tesla's attitude is mirrored by lots of companies that burned bright and died fast. Their business model would be workable if they actually had the funding, but they don't seem to. Meanwhile other companies with much greater resources are striving to do the same thing. Each of them has a hundredfold more engineers than Tesla does, and they already have vehicle platforms of their own. Tesla was allowed to be in the position they're in because these companies dropped the ball on EV's. Watch what happens when they catch up over the next ten years.

[mikeyd]

here is an example of solar power station with 24 hour generation capability, worth the 3 minutes - honestly

YouTube - PS 10 Solar thermal power station

(posted in response to ChrisB)

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by IamBatman

CNG burns much cleaner and more efficient then gasoline. There also aren't not that many CNG cars on the road, so I'm not sure why they used that as an example... keep in mind that interest in developing hybrid,battery,solar and other green technologies have only started the last 5-10 years, so to dismiss it before it even started or to compare it to a well established technology is a little premature

Where did I dismiss it? If anything, I was questioning viability vs the internal-combustion engine; the picture is not as rosy as many would have you believe. However, I don't see how a comparison is not warranted since that is helpful in determining whether a technology is viable from a practicality and economical standpoint.

Apparently, my questioning the viability of these technologies and/or comparing them to current technology is contrary to what you either want to hear or what you believe; hence, I am dismissing them in your eyes. Truth is, they're not commercially viable now and probably won't be for some time to come whether you like it or not.

Case in point: I've attached a spreadsheet showing the break-even point between an Elise Purist Edition and a Tesla; you'll find that the car will probably be dust before you recoup your investment in the Tesla despite the fact that they are basically the same (or at least extremely similar) cars - and that doesn't take into account the usable life of the battery or the cost to replace it. In other words, it is not now commercially viable.

Honestly, I'd love it if we could meet our energy needs using rainbows, but that would be dreaming; I'm a realist.

BTW, I wouldn't necessarily say that CNG is much cleaner or efficient. Take a gander at these and you might revise your statement:
AskPablo: Clean Natural Gas? ( CNG, Compressed+Natural+Gas, CO2, GHG, Emissions,)
California study suggests CNG emissions more toxic than diesel systems
That last one also underscores the law of unintended consequences and the cost associated with pulling the trigger while the jury's still out.

[Icedog_16]

Originally Posted by IamBatman

Electro Automotive: FAQ on Electric Car Efficiency & Pollution
also in the GridWorks link you posted, the 33% efficiency refers to large plants. later on in the next paragraph it mentions distributed energy facilities having the efficiency of 65-90% (as of 2001). you are also assuming all of the power generated by power plants use fossil fuels, there was a chart posted earlier that shows a large percentage of CA electricity is generated with renewable resources.

It would be nice if they showed where they got their figures as they don't jive with what I've seen and Aedo confirmed as much. According to this, Physics In an Automotive Engine, average efficiency is 21% and the most efficient engines are 25% (again, echoing what Aedo said). Looks like a case of twisting the facts to make a more palatable case for the EV.

With respect to the GridWorks link, you fail to mention that the 5600 distributed energy sites accounted for a mere 6% of US power generation, which is negligible. And I didn't assume the power plants used solely fossil fuels (it wasn't even my stat; it was the DoE's). They state:

Originally Posted by US DoE

An electric utility power station uses either a turbine, engine, water wheel, or other similar machine to drive an electric generator or a device that converts mechanical or chemical energy to generate electricity. Steam turbines, internal-combustion engines, gas combustion turbines, water turbines, and wind turbines are the most common methods to generate electricity. Most power plants are about 35 percent efficient. That means that for every 100 units of energy that go into a plant, only 35 units are converted to usable electrical energy.

What is Electricity?

Now what I would assume that they would have taken the various methods of generating power when coming up with that figure. BTW, nice crib from the ElectroAuto.com website. BTW, BTW, the majority of CA's electricity doesn't come from renewable energy even according to them.

Originally Posted by IamBatman

old school wind turbines make a lot of noise, and is actually dangerous in the colder areas because they throw ice as they spin. Then new generation of helical windmills don't have the noise issue, it maxes out at a moderate RPM, doesn't care which direction the wind blows, and looks pretty cool.
Helix Wind

Did you read the spec sheet on that turbine? I almost fell out of my chair when I did. Here it is: http://www.helixwind.com/download/fa...faqs041009.pdf It produces less than 1000 kWh/year with an average wind speed of 11 mph! Oh, and the kicker, it can be ALL YOURS for $11659+ depending on the height of the tower you need (HiWindPower Product 1).

Hint: It will take at least 100 years to break even on that unless you live in a hurricane. And you won't be charging your Tesla with that bad-boy, either.

Originally Posted by IamBatman

as far as efficiency, both solar and wind power is ready now. As I mentioned earlier, if a guy in foggy SF can make his old panel work, then it should work in a majority of the places. All it takes is to get the cost down and incentive for adoption.

Based on your turbine illustration, I beg to differ. I apparently missed your soggy SF solar anecdote somewhere; but, I'm sure there's more to the story (ie, cost, amount of electricity actually produced and realized, area of solar panels, etc.). These are simply not ready for prime-time - that's the realist in me talking again.

[IamBatman]

Originally Posted by Icedog_16

Where did I dismiss it? If anything, I was questioning viability vs the internal-combustion engine; the picture is not as rosy as many would have you believe. However, I don't see how a comparison is not warranted since that is helpful in determining whether a technology is viable from a practicality and economical standpoint.

Apparently, my questioning the viability of these technologies and/or comparing them to current technology is contrary to what you either want to hear or what you believe; hence, I am dismissing them in your eyes. Truth is, they're not commercially viable now and probably won't be for some time to come whether you like it or not.

Case in point: I've attached a spreadsheet showing the break-even point between an Elise Purist Edition and a Tesla; you'll find that the car will probably be dust before you recoup your investment in the Tesla despite the fact that they are basically the same (or at least extremely similar) cars - and that doesn't take into account the usable life of the battery or the cost to replace it. In other words, it is not now commercially viable.

Honestly, I'd love it if we could meet our energy needs using rainbows, but that would be dreaming; I'm a realist.

BTW, I wouldn't necessarily say that CNG is much cleaner or efficient. Take a gander at these and you might revise your statement:
AskPablo: Clean Natural Gas? ( CNG, Compressed+Natural+Gas, CO2, GHG, Emissions,)
California study suggests CNG emissions more toxic than diesel systems
That last one also underscores the law of unintended consequences and the cost associated with pulling the trigger while the jury's still out.

now now, no need to get all emotional here. We're here to discuss facts.
nice links, but emissions does not equal to efficiency. Try again.

on your excel spreadsheet. I don't care how good your math is, your initial assumption is flawed. Are you comparing the development cost of a novel low volume powertrain (and 2 generations of transmissions) to a purchased mass market powertrain? seriously?