|
drgitlin posted:We'll see if Tesla's PR office actually gives me a straight reply to this: I bet Tesla's PR office knows about as much about this as we do. "We're racing the what on the what?!?!"
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:Looks like the Taycan is bothering Musk, he just tweeted he's putting a Model S around Nurburgring next week. lol. That won't end well for him.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 04:35
|
|
|
Family Values posted:The Model 3 isn't in the same market niche as the Taycan, the Model S is. The S is outdated, yet still miles ahead of the competition, funny how that works...
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 07:10
|
|
|
Wibla posted:The S is outdated, yet still miles ahead of the competition, funny how that works... This will continue to be true for narrower and narrower definitions of "the competition" as other cars are released.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 07:56
|
|
|
I appreciate a number of legacy auto manufacturers starting to do some heavy lifting making EVs sound attractive. Most non-Tesla automakers see a world where they can sell their EVs AND sell combustion engine vehicles in equal quantities, but truth is they should be targeting their competitors' (or even their own, but no way that'll happen) ICE vehicles with their EVs rather than their competitor's EVs. Like Audi has been going after the Model X with the E-Tron. Why not go after gas guzzling SUVs? The way I see it, if someone buys (for example) an E-Tron over a Q5 or Q7 or an I-Pace over a F-Pace, an ID.Crozz over a Tiguan, etc., that's a win. Anyway these thoughts came about from this new Ford promo for their Mach E crossover and they're honestly just showing how good their vehicles will be as vehicles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6Mig3tfmO0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWLT9_dYvzw
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 09:19
|
|
|
The S is a quite a bit outdated when you look at creature comforts and interior. I would for instance probably pick a Merc EQC over a Raven S if I had a long commute that I could easily recharge at home. Then the time spent in Merc luxury would be a very big % of the total annual mileage vs the vacation mileage spent with the Teslas better range and charging network.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 09:21
|
|
|
In relation to Mazda's claims: There are several studies which show that a PHEV can be more climate friendly than BEV vehicles. At least if the BEV vehicles are long range BEVs. The production of the battery adds significant amount of greenhouse emissions to the lifetime emissions of a BEV compared to an ICE vehicle. Considering the limited battery production capacity, there is a quite valid argument to be made that a PHEV is more climate friendly choice than a long range BEV.  https://theicct.org/sites/default/files/publications/EV-life-cycle-GHG_ICCT-Briefing_09022018_vF.pdf
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 16:02
|
|
|
DoLittle posted:In relation to Mazda's claims: There are several studies which show that a PHEV can be more climate friendly than BEV vehicles. At least if the BEV vehicles are long range BEVs. The production of the battery adds significant amount of greenhouse emissions to the lifetime emissions of a BEV compared to an ICE vehicle. Considering the limited battery production capacity, there is a quite valid argument to be made that a PHEV is more climate friendly choice than a long range BEV. I mean based on those charts the worst case is that BEVs are starting out as good as the best case for gas cars. Plus, large portions of the emissions sources can be minimized/eliminated without changing the car.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 16:16
|
|
|
DoLittle posted:In relation to Mazda's claims: There are several studies which show that a PHEV can be more climate friendly than BEV vehicles. At least if the BEV vehicles are long range BEVs. The production of the battery adds significant amount of greenhouse emissions to the lifetime emissions of a BEV compared to an ICE vehicle. Considering the limited battery production capacity, there is a quite valid argument to be made that a PHEV is more climate friendly choice than a long range BEV. Maybe at a particular slice of time, ignoring the longer term effects of electrification. One of them is that the production of batteries can be electrified, which will reduce the greenhouse emissions towards a theoretical floor of 0 kg CO2 released per unit of battery. But while oil production and transport can also be electrified, burning the oil for energy in a car, even if it isn't very much, has a theoretical floor the same as its ceiling. For each unit of fossil fuel burned in a car, 100% of its CO2 potential goes to atmosphere. A little is better than a lot in the short term, and nothing is better than a little in the long term.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 16:19
|
|
|
It also depends on your power source for your BEV. A few years ago, it was worse to have a BEV in certain parts of the US (Ohio, North Dakota, among others) than it was to have a modern pure ICE car. I believe that's changed in Ohio now, can't speak to other states, but there's an interesting paper about it. Measuring the Spatial Heterogeneity in EnvironmentalExternalities from Driving: A Comparison of Gasoline and Electric Vehicles This map is for 2014, but it shows what subsidy should be given to EVs in relation to their total pollution cost to the local area:  drgitlin posted:If a stripped Model S with extra cooling shits itself going up Pikes Peak, it is not completing a lap of the Nordschleife without the battery derating. Ahhh I knew I recognized your name from somewhere, I saw someone arguing with Ross Gerber on Twitter and was like how do I know that name. (for those of you who don't know who Ross Gerber is, it's not worth the time to look him up)
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:This map is for 2014, but it shows what subsidy should be given to EVs in relation to their total pollution cost to the local area: This is a really interesting graph from the standpoint that Georgia should be punished in whole for BEVs, except for Atlanta. I’m guessing they’re factoring in the godawful traffic and the health of the city choking on emissions, because I don’t think that Atlanta gets any cleaner power than the rest of Georgia. Edit: maybe it’s because the map is so small on my phone but NYC shouldn’t have subsidies nor Chicago? Interesting. funeral home DJ fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Sep 6, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:01
|
|
|
RZA Encryption posted:Companies that already have land/buildings will be the ones to own charging infra. Fast food makes perfect sense if you can convince the franchisees to go for it. I was really into the idea of a fast charging convenience store chain but shoot you're looking at like $5M each for land/construction/equipment. Now it's just a "if I won the lottery" thing. I think what they're showing are those highway rest stops that are popular in Europe? I haven't been to Sweden but do they have the same thing? They're kind of like the ones on the turnpikes on the east coast of the U.S.. extravadanza posted:I love my Mazda 3, but I'm at 140k miles and starting to think about a new car in the next 2 years or so. I would love to see what they could do with a BEV format. https://www.news.com.au/technology/...3bb5cd7a0cc5d68
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 21:52
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:This is a really interesting graph from the standpoint that Georgia should be punished in whole for BEVs, except for Atlanta. I’m guessing they’re factoring in the godawful traffic and the health of the city choking on emissions, because I don’t think that Atlanta gets any cleaner power than the rest of Georgia. I think it's entirely focused on PM2.5 and not CO2, so it's all local air quality stuff which is important but less of a big deal than emissions that contribute to climate change. EDIT: no, it's not, it does mention CO2 as well. Interesting..
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 22:10
|
|
|
Here in Atlanta we have lake Lanier with a huge dam generator into the Chatahoochie river so my guess is that this explains the green energy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 22:15
|
|
|
Nfcknblvbl posted:Here in Atlanta we have lake Lanier with a huge dam generator into the Chatahoochie river so my guess is that this explains the green energy. Buford dam is a relatively small, peak-generation-only hydro station.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 22:29
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Buford dam is a relatively small, peak-generation-only hydro station. Ah, got it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 22:36
|
|
|
Pennsylvania has a lot of natural gas and nuclear power too, so I'd have to look closer at all the data. I guess they do still have a decent amount coal, maybe any significant amount of coal just messes up your numbers? *edit* As I mentioned earlier, I think Ohio has already changed, so I wouldn't be surprised if that map looks a fair amount different now. Which is pretty crazy for only 5 years
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 22:57
|
|
|
I'm like 99% sure there are no states where it's cleaner to drive a gas car, including battery manufacturing. Also apparently Tesla didn't bother to schedule time at Nurburgring https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a28942079/tesla-model-s-nurburgring-lap-attempt-porsche-taycan/
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
I think even without battery manufacturing, somewhere coal heavy like North Carolina could be worse. From the first thing I found on google, but at least it's 2019: The Impact of Electric Vehicle Adoption in North Carolina "Moreover, compared to the internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicle, EVs do not necessarily emit less CO2 and NO2 than the ICE in the scenarios modeled, and EVs consistently lead to higher SO2 emissions than ICEs." When your additional peak power comes from coal, you probably don't want a ton of EVs in your state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2019 23:55
|
|
|
We're in Pennsylvania but do the Green Mountain Energy thing for our electricity. I realize that's not a silver bullet, but it means our PHEV isn't being powered by coal, or if it is, there's carbon offsets being purchased or something.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Westy543 posted:I'm like 99% sure there are no states where it's cleaner to drive a gas car, including battery manufacturing. This isn't surprising. Setting a ring time take a lot f pre-planning.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 01:40
|
|
|
Westy543 posted:Also apparently Tesla didn't bother to schedule time at Nurburgring *shrug* There was never any way it was going to be more than a look and see with a ringer or a S with a prototype driveline.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
I’m surprised Elon called out Porsche on their use of the word Turbo when his electric charging stations are not, as far as I know, belt driven.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:11
|
|
|
bird with big dick posted:I’m surprised Elon called out Porsche on their use of the word Turbo when his electric charging stations are not, as far as I know, belt driven. You’re right: “Ultrachargers” sounds rad and should’ve been used. Maybe make them glow neon colors while a screen plays a video of Georgia Moroder and David Hasselhoff giving a high five in front of a neon pyramid while in use. Elon Musk pay me for my idea, bitch.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:40
|
|
|
*pathetic neeeeeerd mode on* But achcuallly a turbo is a supercharger and describing a charger but with much higher energy flow as a supercharger is gramatically correct and noooo phlease dont beat me up and stufff meeee in a locker *pathetic neeeeeeer mode off*
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 02:49
|
|
|
Wibla posted:The S is outdated, yet still miles ahead of the competition, funny how that works... Established auto manufacturers want to make money and don't have the advantage of existing in the Silicon Valley reality distortion field where you can lose progressively more and more money over time and that's actually a good thing. The economics simply haven't made sense for them and I think most of them were content to let Tesla tackle the niche market of luxury electric sedans.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 03:01
|
|
|
I like fortum’s hypercharger name
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 03:22
|
|
|
Yeah, I don’t really understand that map. Looking at Illinois, only DuPage county has a positive subsidy rating. I’m not aware of anything there that makes the electricity greener. Nearly half of IL power is nuclear, with about 40% from coal. By comparison, Colorado is 75% coal and natural gas, but is all green on the map.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 04:22
|
|
|
Ripoff posted:This is a really interesting graph from the standpoint that Georgia should be punished in whole for BEVs, except for Atlanta. I’m guessing they’re factoring in the godawful traffic and the health of the city choking on emissions, because I don’t think that Atlanta gets any cleaner power than the rest of Georgia. Something is off with the map or the interpretation. Vermont has one of the lowest environmental impact per unit of electricity consumed in the U.S.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 05:14
|
|
|
Westy543 posted:Also apparently Tesla didn't bother to schedule time at Nurburgring apparently a slightly modified S was spotted there https://www.instagram.com/p/B2Br245iPoL/
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 05:55
|
|
|
Jalopnik cut a Taycan in half! Sort of Lots of good detail here. Someone lend us about 220,000 at 0% interest thanks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 08:30
|
|
|
Wow, gotta read that. Lot to learn!
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 10:23
|
|
|
stirlo posted:Jalopnik cut a Taycan in half! edit- I’m sure it’s very good. Tracy did a great deep dive into MEB a few months back, though. drgitlin fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Sep 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 12:50
|
|
|
MomJeans420 posted:I think even without battery manufacturing, somewhere coal heavy like North Carolina could be worse. From the first thing I found on google, but at least it's 2019: What about if someone had rooftop solar?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 14:57
|
|
|
I don't fully understand these analyses, as they don't seem to be 'all in' measures of CO2 or other greenhouse gases, they only look at the last production prior to use in the car, but it be great to understand the full scope. For example it seems that refining and transporting a gallon of gas takes more electricity (8kwh) than that gallon would transport many vehicles vs. how many miles that electricity alone would produce in an EV. Assuming the power is generated similarly in both cases, it would seem there is a clear case? https://www.autoblog.com/2011/10/14/how-gas-cars-use-more-electricity-to-go-100-miles-than-evs-do/
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
If you’re focused only on your EV’s coal footprint then just having rooftop solar isn’t enough: you’ll also want to charge only when you would otherwise be metering back into the grid, or use a storage solution like a powerwall. Charging at night is actually coal-friendly in that it levels out the overnight demand and makes the less responsive power sources (coal and especially nuclear) more financially viable. That won’t be enough to save coal though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 16:31
|
|
|
I didn't read all of it, but I skimmed for future predictions on energy and couldn't find it. If they haven't included it, it seems a bit useless to argue for a future political scheme of subisidies and not take into account changes in energy supply. PM2.5 is also something coal power can filter very well ( it they get forced to). North Dakota may be slow to take up renewables, but it looks like things are in motion: https://morningconsult.com/2019/04/26/north-dakota-in-last-place-for-solar-takes-steps-to-move-up-the-ranks/ Basically that paper does what many EV detractors do. You take a slice of time and then assume the energy production modes will remain static forever, then use that to argue against EVs. But the simple fact remains, an EV is only as green as the grid and the grid can get greener, even if it starts as 100% fossil. A fossil car on the other hand, can never be less than 100% fossil.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 16:49
|
|
|
They're not arguing EVs will be that way forever, they're just looking at it from what subsidies should these vehicles receive in relation to their environmental cost/benefit perspective. Just going from coal to natural gas alone would make the EVs greener, not taking into account battery production etc.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 17:13
|
|
|
Ulf posted:If you’re focused only on your EV’s coal footprint then just having rooftop solar isn’t enough: you’ll also want to charge only when you would otherwise be metering back into the grid, or use a storage solution like a powerwall. Are there alternatives to powerwall that aren't vaporware or DIY?
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
I don’t think so, but I feel the same about storage that I feel about solar: I’d rather my utility did it because they can do it way more cheaply and efficiently. That said I do have rooftop solar because my utility is run by climate change denialists and don’t offer a means for funding renewables (it’s an REA co-op for those that know what that means). This is kind of a tangent now so we should take it to the energy megathread, shitshow that it is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2019 19:15
|
|