|
Just from the physics of it, the burning efficiency they talk about (70%) is equivalent to a lead-acid battery, modern EV batteries are more efficient than that as a matter of course. In addition, there would be losses incurred at each step of the process (electrolysis, CO2 to CO conversion, warming the thing to make hydrocarbon chains...), as well as transport losses (you'd burn some fuel to get the fuel where it's going). On the plus side, this process would have easy access to lots of electricity (that would be one of the primary factors for factory location) and the infrastructure to ferry fuel around is very well developed already. While humanity doesn't have enough clean energy to serve our needs, I'd go with the less lossy process as being better.
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
Crotch Fruit posted:I don't know of a better thread for this, but is Sunfire/Audi's Blue Crude real? There are breathless press releases about some variation on the Fischer—Tropsch process pretty regularly. Journalists then write it up as if it’s magic. Maybe this time they’ve made a real breakthrough, but I doubt it. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 18:40 on May 10, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
After Clarkson left, Top Gear editorial policy on EVs changed dramatically. http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/tesla-model-s-p85d-review-first-drive-2015-05-11
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Crotch Fruit posted:I don't know of a better thread for this, but is Sunfire/Audi's Blue Crude real? quote:Audi has successfully made diesel fuel from carbon dioxide and water An Audi A8 owned by a wanka is hardly news.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Interesting article about how unpopular electric/hybrids are currently with cheap gas:quote:In all, 55 percent of hybrid and electric vehicle owners are defecting to a gasoline-only model at trade-in time — the lowest level of hybrid loyalty since Edmunds.com began tracking such transactions in 2011. More than one in five are switching to a conventional sport utility vehicle, nearly double the rate of three years ago. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/15/automobiles/wheels/with-gas-prices-less-of-a-worry-buyers-pass-hybrids-cars-by.html
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
I am one of them  Wrecked my Volt in February - Allstate sucks, eventually totaled it after trying to repair it for 3 months. The main driver for going non-EV when replacing it was needing the flexibility of not having to plug in. It's great getting 175 mpg+ in the 50 miles around my house, not so great when the regional infrastructure is not EV friendly. I know that sounds crazy since the Volt has the range extender to "eliminate range anxiety" but in the near future I'm looking to downsize life and being able to plug in is no longer a certainty. The Volt was a great car on electric, only a good car on gas. And the accident was a good opportunity to change. Goober Peas fucked around with this message at 19:12 on May 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:17
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Interesting article about how unpopular electric/hybrids are currently with cheap gas: This happens every few years or so, they'll be back as soon as the average is over $4 again.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Once OPEC manages to destroy Venezuela oil prices are going to skyrocket again, basing a car purchase decision on saving gas over 5-10 years using current gas prices is a pretty foolish way to make a decision. Our species really has a problem with long-term planning and forward thinking I do worry that this will slow infrastructure growth for EVs as low gas prices are used in some ways as an excuse to not install charging stations or what-have-you, with lovely middle managers and tinpot executives everywhere using gas prices as an excuse to delay installing charging stations by another 5 years on whatever property they own. That said, it still costs less or about the same to lease my Leaf than similar ICE cars and I finally plunked down for a level 2 charger at home so that I can charge absurdly cheaply during off-off peak times, so I'm still saving a bunch of money even with lower gas prices  Almost a year in now to having a Leaf it's been pretty great, the only real negative about it is that it can only go 75 miles on a charge, which occasionally causes issues with sudden, unplanned trips. That's pretty much it, and it's not super difficult to work around in my case, though it's understandably not enough for everyone quite yet. As such I'm still excited for MY2017 when we should see affordable 200+ mile range options (and hopefully L3 charging starts to convene on a standard and become more available) which really seems like the point where range anxiety only comes up in extreme circumstances.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 18:49
|
|
|
Boten Anna posted:Once OPEC manages to destroy Venezuela oil prices are going to skyrocket again, basing a car purchase decision on saving gas over 5-10 years using current gas prices is a pretty foolish way to make a decision. Our species really has a problem with long-term planning and forward thinking Most people don't keep cars more than 5 years, so it's actually not a terrible decision basis for an individual buyer. Boten Anna posted:I do worry that this will slow infrastructure growth for EVs as low gas prices are used in some ways as an excuse to not install charging stations or what-have-you, with lovely middle managers and tinpot executives everywhere using gas prices as an excuse to delay installing charging stations by another 5 years on whatever property they own. If they can get past three issues, then EV cars would be on my radar: 1) Enough range to be a viable option for a single car household (other than trips). I commute about 110 miles per day in Arizona heat. Only the Model S is a potential EV for me. 2) Cars that meet item 1 need to be price competitive (at least reasonably so) with a comparable gasoline powered vehicle. At the very least the cost difference should be small enough that napkin math can show savings over the life of the car vs. the gasoline alternative. 3) Not look ugly as gently caress (does not apply to the model S and that BMW super EV). Seriously, why does every 'entry level' EV have to be the ugliest loving car on the road? Note that due to how much I drive, leasing is not an option for me, either gasoline or electric, so it has to be affordable to *own*, not lease.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Most people don't keep cars more than 5 years, so it's actually not a terrible decision basis for an individual buyer. There's no way in h*ck gas prices are staying this low for the next 5 years I think 200 mi battery packs will be the sweet spot for the range being acceptable for most people, and expanded charging infrastructure would also be a huge help. That range will probably be a huge boost for demand for charging and especially if combined with some good tax incentives or outright legislation requiring L2 charging availability in offices and apartments, if most people have access to L2 charging at work and at home and L3 charging becomes more widely available (this seems like an area where gas stations can remain relevant and reel in customers to the snack shop) that would effectively make the range even less of an issue. I like cute eco cars and bubbly hatchbacks  I understand many/most people don't really though, but that said I do think we'll see more convergence with traditional designs, as EVs no longer have to be tiny and it seems like function is informing the style of ICE cars to include the same kind of aerodynamics EVs have in order to improve gas mileage. It seems like the main appeal of Ford's EV line is "hey this is a boringass regular car that is an EV" for instance, but more distinctive and stylish models will probably come with EV versions within the next few years.The cost to buy versus lease is kind of a big deal though for heavy drivers, I'll give you that. That said, the prices aren't really getting higher, and the gigafactory alone has promising implications for driving the battery costs way down. Additional government subsidies for an initial push (perhaps even instant rebates at the point of sale in addition to existing tax credits in the US) to encourage adoption can help here, too. There's also the very real possibility of stuff happening like the glut of leased early-gen EVs being retrofitted with bigger, cheaper batteries and sold at used car prices, or maybe used car dealers start doing EV conversions to increase their margins while still offering cars well below new car price. Probably the thing that interests me most about EVs is how they will integrate into the macro and microeconomic economies. I love my Leaf in large part because it's a very sensible economic decision, and as I see more and more on the road, and more commonly driven by people who don't seem like they're rich enthusiasts, it excites me. I can't wait for EVs to be a common paradigm, something we all share, and for massive local air quality improvement as we slow and maybe even all but stop this ridiculous poo poo we're doing where we spew noxious chemicals at street level all the time.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
The Locator posted:ugly as gently caress  BMW, why? The i8 looks so good, most other BMW cars from the last several decades look pretty good (X3 and X5 excepted), so what the gently caress happened with the i3?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
The Ugly EV Rule* was applied. *when not a super-car type EV.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
Pryor on Fire posted:Interesting article about how unpopular electric/hybrids are currently with cheap gas: Keep in mind that they lump regular hybrids into that. I'd much rather have, say, a Ford Focus that gets 35mpg than a Prius that gets 50. My Leaf still comes out ahead of either since I pay about 1/10th the fuel cost I used to, and once you make that giant leap to pure EV it really is hard to go back. I don't even like walking past idling vehicles anymore; the smell and heat bug me now. I'm not sure PHEV owners really notice those things since there's still gasoline and exhaust around.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 06:40
|
|
|
Eh, the electric Golf is doing fantastic in Norway, and it looks fine. I'll agree that the i3 and Leaf isn't for everyone, but at this point there's some good looking choices, at least in Europe. I think the Zoe in particular has a good design for a small car.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 09:09
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:
It became economical to produce a concept car? Modern styling trends are loving horrible? The second a set of 18 inch wheels appeared on a 5 series, this was inevitable.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
The bmw is the only EV beside Tesla selling over MSRP. The Cadillac volt is the most discounted. BMW is going to own Tesla's "cheap" EV. You don't out smug BMW without a fight.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
I just wish the Model 3 will be 20-25k instead of 30k. Those extra few thousands on either side will be either a great incentive or a big barrier to a lot of households. It seems highly unlikely that Tesla will be able to beat the big manufacturers in terms of cost however, which makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:It became economical to produce a concept car? Modern styling trends are loving horrible? The second a set of 18 inch wheels appeared on a 5 series, this was inevitable. It's not actually economical but it doesn't matter because, like most EVs, it's not even expected to break even let alone make money. Probably the only exception right now is the Leaf, and that's dependent on how you count all the billions they've invested in EV R&D and manufacturing. And I guess the Volt in that htey expected it to make money, but that really goes more to how incompetent GM's new management was than anything about EVs in particular. Michael Scott posted:I just wish the Model 3 will be 20-25k instead of 30k. Those extra few thousands on either side will be either a great incentive or a big barrier to a lot of households. I very highly doubt they will even come in at 30k while maintaining the promised range. Or that they will be available anytime soon, considering Tesla can't even get the Model X to market and that's basically just a Model S wagon. Tesla absolutely can beat the big manufacturers in terms of cost, though, because they have the huge advantage of not needing to actually make money on the car (or, more accurately, they're free to lose more money on EVs). Now that they're trying to rebrand themselves as "more than just a car company" they will probably be able to get even more investor money, too. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 15:24 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
The lease for my leaf is up in October. They had offered me a buyout price of $16,000 in April (from $21,000), but with the 2017 model planning to have 200 mile range (likely 100 during the worst part of our winter from my current experience), I really don't see why I would pay that price based on the current resale prices. If I am offered a buyout closer to $13,000 or find that I can later upgrade the battery pack, I might change my mind. As is, I just rather not have two cars, when one is so limited in the winter months and it would be nice to not have a car payment... Well until the longer take EVs entice me. I haven't missed anything about Leaf battery upgrades, have I?
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
Michael Scott posted:I just wish the Model 3 will be 20-25k instead of 30k. Those extra few thousands on either side will be either a great incentive or a big barrier to a lot of households. Well, who knows. The battery is a huge % of the total cost and Tesla is about to become the biggest manufacturer of EV batteries in the world. http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/blog_attachments/gigafactory.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Michael Scott posted:I just wish the Model 3 will be 20-25k instead of 30k. Those extra few thousands on either side will be either a great incentive or a big barrier to a lot of households. The average new car deal is 32k, if they can even get close to that number, say in the mid-high 30's, it'd be affordable for the average new car buyer when considering the gas savings.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
sanchez posted:The average new car deal is 32k, if they can even get close to that number, say in the mid-high 30's, it'd be affordable for the average new car buyer when considering the gas savings. There's a bit of an income floor for EVs in the U.S., as well. The $7500 tax credit is non-refundable, and is only applicable during the fiscal year of purchase. If you're not going to pay at least $7500 worth of income taxes that year, you won't realize the entire credit, making the vehicle effectively more expensive. Congress is full of bumbling, paid-for, idiots, essentially.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:Tesla absolutely can beat the big manufacturers in terms of cost, though, because they have the huge advantage of not needing to actually make money on the car (or, more accurately, they're free to lose more money on EVs). Can you expound on this point? Why does Tesla not need to make money on a car whereas GM does..? MrYenko posted:There's a bit of an income floor for EVs in the U.S., as well. The $7500 tax credit is non-refundable, and is only applicable during the fiscal year of purchase. If you're not going to pay at least $7500 worth of income taxes that year, you won't realize the entire credit, making the vehicle effectively more expensive. The tax credit doesn't roll over to future years? And the 7500 applies to already-withheld taxes too, which means what was withheld will be refunded up to that credit amount, is that right? Michael Scott fucked around with this message at 16:12 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
It's not too surprising that those earning low wages can't afford a brand new car, is it? Even in heavily subsidized Norway they are for people who earn good wages. A used diesel hatch + 5 years of fuel < a new EV. But they do seem to depreciate a bit fast, steady updates to the model range is going to make the older ones drop in value faster. Which will make them more accessible for more people.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
Michael Scott posted:The tax credit doesn't roll over to future years? And the 7500 applies to already-withheld taxes too, which means what was withheld will be refunded up to that credit amount, is that right? Correct. Applies to tax liability for the fiscal year you purchase the car, regardless of when during the year it was earned/withheld. It does not roll forward in whole or in part, which I feel is a particularly dumb decision, since I'd wager that more than half of individuals in this country aren't on the hook for that much in a single year.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Michael Scott posted:Can you expound on this point? Why does Tesla not need to make money on a car whereas GM does..? Probably because Elon Musk is rich enough to burn money for as long as he wants.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
duz posted:Probably because Elon Musk is rich enough to burn money for as long as he wants. And GM isn't? GM's market cap is $56 B. Even if it takes a loss for a few years on a model as long as it eventually turns into gains they can make it up no problem. I'm not seeing your point and I don't think Tesla can afford a loss any more than GM can, and Tesla is certainly testing that point these past couple quarters with its massive spending, coupled with a badly-timed gas price plunge.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:34
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Correct. Applies to tax liability for the fiscal year you purchase the car, regardless of when during the year it was earned/withheld. It does not roll forward in whole or in part, which I feel is a particularly dumb decision, since I'd wager that more than half of individuals in this country aren't on the hook for that much in a single year. Or it just forces you to lease.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Michael Scott posted:And GM isn't? GM's market cap is $56 B. Even if it takes a loss for a few years on a model as long as it eventually turns into gains they can make it up no problem. I'm not seeing your point and I don't think Tesla can afford a loss any more than GM can, and Tesla is certainly testing that point these past couple quarters with its massive spending, coupled with a badly-timed gas price plunge. If GM makes a successful EV, they will help Tesla. With overall EV use going up, public favor turns more positive, more infrastructure is built or adapted to it, more people take the EV plunge. This phenomenon exists in every business paradigm shift, at least in theory. And at the moment, Tesla's market cap is 30.87 bn, Ford is 61. Pretty weird to think about a start-up being half the size of the old titans already.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Michael Scott posted:Can you expound on this point? Why does Tesla not need to make money on a car whereas GM does..? I'll try to put this simply since this isn't finance chat. Currently, Tesla does not make money on cars while GM does. This can be sustained because investors are mostly sold on the hype and continue to give Tesla money, whereas GM does not have as good a reputation and a lot more debt. Also, market cap isn't really a great measure of a company's size. Look at their market cap vs. total assets. GM has 30 times the assets of Tesla but less than double the market cap. Or in other words, tech bubble 2.0. It also has 30 times the liabilities. Tesla has very little debt and, as a new company, few other liabilities. A company with a lot of debt, pension payments, factories, etc., can't lose money for very long because they will run out of money. Can Tesla ever actually make money? Dunno. Tesla's approach has been to throw money at the problem by putting a whole lot of very expensive but readily available batteries in a car to give it enough range to be useful. Most big carmakers noodle around with custom or novel battery technologies with very limited production numbers hoping for the next big thing because they already know you can't really turn a very healthy profit by filling a car full of laptop batteries. And why would you sell a product that competes with the products you already sell but which you make less money on? Especially since you can't even sell as many of them because the infrastructure isn't there (and on the big picture, US electrical infrastructure is totally inadequate). The thinking is that eventually economies of scale and new technology will drop the price of Telsas to something that normal people can afford. I'm skeptical whether this will happen because the cells they're using are already pretty mature technologically and produced in really large volumes, and there's a limit to what economies of scale can do for you. Tesla is betting that something unforeseen will happen that will fix this issue, and in the meantime they are burning cash like crazy and ultimately it doesn't really matter because everybody is getting paid except for the suckers who will be stuck holding the bag in case things don't work out according to their very optimistic predictions. A lot of investors assume that prices will drop dramatically for the batteries Tesla uses because this is what would happen for all the weird, low-volume packs that other carmakers use but arguably this might not happen at the rate Tesla claims due to the volume and maturity of the battery tech they currently use. I say this also because Telsa's numbers and claims have been very inaccurate and unreliable in the past. OXBALLS DOT COM fucked around with this message at 18:38 on May 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Low debt is one of the reasons Tesla are still making losses and why those losses are tolerated, they are aggressively writing down capital expenditure like retooling and the Gigafactory. Best regards White Knight Capital Ltd
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
Ola posted:Tesla's market cap is 30.87 bn 31.12 bn now. Has been ripping for days. Feels...exuberant, perhaps irrationally.
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:I'll try to put this simply since this isn't finance chat. Currently, Tesla does not make money on cars while GM does. This can be sustained because investors are mostly sold on the hype and continue to give Tesla money, whereas GM does not have as good a reputation and a lot more debt. I don't get your point. Tesla's margin on their cars is very healthy according to their financials. So they are making money on cars. At the same time they're burning huge pile of cash on capex for the gigafactory, model x tooling, ramp up, etc. is this what you mean by them not making money on cars? Because if it is, I don't see why it's a problem. It's big cash spend but it's also just their stated business plan. And their inflated share price isn't really a case of investors throwing money at Tesla because they haven't been raising capital. They did a year or so ago, and paid back the govt loan, but since then I don't think there have been any share issues. Lastly, what are the numbers and claims that tesla have made that have been so inaccurate? My feeling is that they have tended to understate the final price a bit, and been overly optimistic on timing, but nothing extraordinary. Model X coming out a few months late doesn't seem like a big deal. I expect Model 3 will be 6-12 months late and cost a few thousand more than stated but still not a huge deal, in the overall scheme of things. Is that very different to the performance of other car companies? I'm not really a car person, so maybe it is completely unusual, but it seems very typical for new technology. Apologies if this is a thread derail, but I'm interested in the answer as model 3 on paper is appealing to me.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
pun pundit posted:Just from the physics of it, the burning efficiency they talk about (70%) is equivalent to a lead-acid battery, modern EV batteries are more efficient than that as a matter of course. In addition, there would be losses incurred at each step of the process (electrolysis, CO2 to CO conversion, warming the thing to make hydrocarbon chains...), as well as transport losses (you'd burn some fuel to get the fuel where it's going). If the governments of the world seriously commit to wind and solar energy generation, something like this could be used to use/store the excess electricity the intermittent sources generate. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 02:35 on May 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Mange Mite posted:I'll try to put this simply since this isn't finance chat. Currently, Tesla does not make money on cars while GM does. This can be sustained because investors are mostly sold on the hype and continue to give Tesla money, whereas GM does not have as good a reputation and a lot more debt. There's also the fact that major established companies like GM are often more concerned with making next quarter's financial statement look good than staying competitive over the long term (generally at the demand of greedy shortsighted investors). So anything that would take much more than a couple of years to pay for itself can be a tough sell, even if it'd mean getting in on the ground floor of something that will almost inevitably replace most of their current products within our lifetime. Though to be fair, it would kind of suck to spend several billion dollars on a battery factory, only to subsequently discover that it's no good for whatever nanotech voodoo ends up replacing today's lithium batteries. quote:The thinking is that eventually economies of scale and new technology will drop the price of Telsas to something that normal people can afford. I'm skeptical whether this will happen because the cells they're using are already pretty mature technologically and produced in really large volumes, and there's a limit to what economies of scale can do for you. Not that large when you consider that EVs currently account for a tiny percentage of the overall auto industry. For them to become more than a novelty, battery production is going to have to go way up. silence_kit posted:If the governments of the world seriously commit to wind and solar energy generation, something like this could be used to use/store the excess electricity the intermittent sources generate. I'd imagine supercapacitors would be even better, on account of their far higher charge/discharge performance and cycle life. Their energy density is currently crap, but it's not like that'd be much of a problem for something that's staying in one place. Cockmaster fucked around with this message at 22:41 on May 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Can I throw a few words in? I currently have a Mustang GT on order. I also desperately want a Tesla (moreso after reading this http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html) There are 5 reason I have a Mustang on order instead of an EV. 1: V8s are dying and I want one before they go completely. 2: Range anxiety as an only vehicle. 200+ mile ranges and superchargers will fully ameliorate this. 3: Performance of current EVs, excluding Tesla S "P" models, is horrible. Full torque at 0 rpm is nice, but 150 total hp isn't. 4: Apartments suck for charging. 5: still too expensive for models that don't suck (hint, the ones that dont suck say "Tesla" on the side) So I'll enjoy burning gas at 20mpg while its "cheap" until the P85D model 3 comes out at $45k in 3-5 years and superchargers are everywhere. We're on the cusp of EV being mainstream, but not quite there yet. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:Can I throw a few words in? The quickness of my Leaf always surprised me before I owned Teslas. Not saying you should get one, but have you ever driven one? Reading about torque at 0 RPM and feeling it are different things!
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
I hope v8's arent dying Cant different engines be used to different applications? MattD1zzl3 fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jun 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
This was written recently and thought it would stimulate some discussion...  http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla-will-change-your-life.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 14:51 |
|
|
ilkhan posted:We're on the cusp of EV being mainstream, but not quite there yet. There are millions and millions of people who think the same as you, which is a great for the future of EVs. The more money is put into R&D of cars and infrastructure, the bigger the market gets. In the mean time, test drive whatever is on the market now so you can keep your finger on the pulse of the development, like eeenmachine says they all have that addictive zap off the line although noting touches the Tesla of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2015 08:07
|
|