TESLA finally launches a truck/semi ? AND some solarpower in PUERTO RICO.

[3roomlab]

looks like its coming to a street somewhere soon ... 2019 he says

but gets somewhat bad review on FOXNEWS?
https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/fox-news-real-truckers-opinion-about-tesla-semi

as of this moment, there is no dedicated page on TESLA site on the truck, but only a short launch video on youtube
https://www.youtube.com/results?sp=EgIYAg%253D%253D&search_query=tesla+truck

specs as of this moment (or lack of)
0-60mph (+80k lbs load) 20s
500mi range

[rx8pilot]

I love the technology development but am also dubious about the ability to supply the massive number of batteries and electronics without creating a problem similar to fossil fuels. For these idea to make an impact that Elon seems to be hoping for - generation and storage of power has to improve dramatically and somehow humanity will have to avoid going to war over the various rare and critical minerals needed.

[CM800]

the page is here: https://www.tesla.com/semi/

[martinator]

Musk stinks. Enlarged anal glands.

[bd139]

Coal fired trucks!

[Jeroen3]

Tesla notes on its website that the semi-truck will consume “less than 2 kWh / mile”. If we’re to factor in a worst case scenario of 2 kWh of energy used per mile travelled, this would equate to 800 kWh of energy consumed in 400 miles (644 km) of travel. Tesla’s Megacharger would need to have a tremendous power output of 1.6 MW, or thirteen times the power level of a standard Supercharger to be able to replenish 400 miles of battery range in 30 minutes. This, of course, is based on the assumption that the Tesla Semi will consume 2 kWh of energy per mile which in reality will probably be less, as Tesla notes.

That would be a problem challenge.

[floobydust]

It's just an electric vehicle application being upscaled.
Bigger motors, bigger batteries, bigger chargers. Kind of meh.

Savings with regen would be excellent compared to the Jake Brake.

I can see Musk trying to get the technology out there, commonplace.
But good old lithium...

[CM800]

Tesla notes on its website that the semi-truck will consume “less than 2 kWh / mile”. If we’re to factor in a worst case scenario of 2 kWh of energy used per mile travelled, this would equate to 800 kWh of energy consumed in 400 miles (644 km) of travel. Tesla’s Megacharger would need to have a tremendous power output of 1.6 MW, or thirteen times the power level of a standard Supercharger to be able to replenish 400 miles of battery range in 30 minutes. This, of course, is based on the assumption that the Tesla Semi will consume 2 kWh of energy per mile which in reality will probably be less, as Tesla notes.

That would be a problem challenge.

Now, that's something I'd like to see a teardown on.

[mariush]

For anyone curious, there's actually a competitor that uses batteries AND hydrogen called Nikola One : https://nikolamotor.com/one

They have specs and everything on the page I linked to above

According to some people on forums and truckers with Youtube channels, this one is more realistic than the Tesla truck (and longer range, Tesla's seems more like small trips and back to company yard at end of day).

as for Tesla (the presentation in 9 minutes for those that are too lazy to check the site):

[expinkolator]

I am amazed they can fit a 500mile battery in a prime mover.

What makes you think they have?

I was amazed they could swap a model S battery in 90 seconds.



But 4 years later is seems it was only once for show (and if memory serves to be able to screw some more taxpayer $ out of California).

[Falcon69]

The real joke here is that the truck driver gets any say in what he drives. He's not the one paying the fuel or maintenance bills the vast majority of the time, the company is - and the company will try to save money however they can.

This is not true. the driver has two choices.

1. He can quit and goto work for another company, or
2. He can take the lease option and go with a different truck and stay within the company.

I worked for 3 companies driving, and in each company, they had a leasing option.  I was able to choose between different models of truck I wanted to drive. I actually made more money leasing, than I did working for the company as just straight by the mile pay.

Here in the US, almost every trucking company (the big ones anyway), have a leasing option and you can choose from a number of tractors you'd rather own/drive.

[wraper]

According to some people on forums and truckers with Youtube channels, this one is more realistic than the Tesla truck (and longer range, Tesla's seems more like small trips and back to company yard at end of day).

Rather completely unrealistic. Extreme hydrogen cost will kill it before they even sell any. No company will buy truck which is not economical to use.

[expinkolator]

Amazing to me that someone in the Netherlands would be worrying about poor little California missing out on some tax revenue.

I don't care about Californians. I was just pointing out the disconnect between flashy Musk video presentations and reality.

Reality is there are likely not enough dumb investors left to keep Tesla afloat long enough to put these semis into production.

[JPortici]

The real joke here is that the truck driver gets any say in what he drives. He's not the one paying the fuel or maintenance bills the vast majority of the time, the company is - and the company will try to save money however they can.

here in italy there are a lot of truck drivers which own their trucks, are self employed and they get contract from other companies to move stuff around

regarding the tesla truck i am
- impressed that they could achieve such mileage with a single charge (just about what one truck driver is allowed to drive in a single shift)
- curious about the actual mileage.. or to be more specifing for how long it will be able to keep that mileage
- disgusted by the design. they can make good looking cars and this truck is a monstrosity.

[filssavi]

I'd like to see how the range holds up when the thinlg is fully loaded with 44 tons of stuff is attached to this truck...

Also 1.6 MW for each charger?? That will no doubt put a huge stress on the power grid if they are to have more than few trucks charging per city

[Jeroen3]

I guess you'll have to buy Tesla battery containers to charge your truck.

[tszaboo]

The most important questions are not addressed:
- Does the self-driving has a setting, where it drives just enough on the other side of the road to drive the other cars off the road? Does it have random metal parts extending to hit everything missed by the rest of the truck?
- Can it park illegally? Can you unload the cargo in rush hour on the main street?
- Does the UI come in polish?
- Does it automatically hit cyclist in the dead zones? You know, to educate the remaining cyclists?
- Does it auto-jettison some of the bricks it is carrying?
- Does it have way too much annoying yellow blinkies? Telling you that I'm driving slow, but that's OK< because I have blinkies!

In center position, how can the driver get a sunburn on his left arm? This is a huge oversight.

[bd139]

I'd like to see how the range holds up when the thinlg is fully loaded with 44 tons of stuff is attached to this truck...

Also 1.6 MW for each charger?? That will no doubt put a huge stress on the power grid if they are to have more than few trucks charging per city

There is a discrepancy of units here. The article josses around between KWh and then MW, losing the time component. I haven't read it properly yet so this could be rubbish.

[Jeroen3]

I don't think it's right either. The plug has to be 10kV or something to do that.
We'll just have wait for Tesla to publish this.

[Miyuki]

Why they want to replace diesel engine in single reasonable use?
Engine at highway steady use can easy work at 50% efficiency or more with all filters working with almost no emissions
Problem is slow jumping trough cities where combustion engine have poor efficiency and lot of emissions

[DenzilPenberthy]

... because a lot of trucks spend most of their time doing multi-drop work around cities...

[3roomlab]

it would be interesting if TESLA makes a "public transportation bus" version, a bendy one with a CD of 0.36?

[Bashstreet]

Electric cars are a joke 

[wraper]

Electric cars are a joke 

I a way they jokingly outperform ICE cars?

[Bashstreet]

Electric cars are a joke 

I a way they jokingly outperform ICE cars?

No i mean they are joke in terms of resources pollutants and feasibility.

[Bashstreet]

That reminds me.. those ICE cars

[tszaboo]

Electric cars are a joke 

I a way they jokingly outperform ICE cars?

No i mean they are joke in terms of resources pollutants and feasibility.

Yes. Not only do they pollute more (especially NOx), it is actually impossible to build an electric car.
We should keep using a non renewable resource in the future, because those will last forever.

[bd139]

I've said it for years. The best way we can handle this is to all stay at home and use networks of Trebuchets to sling goods at each other.

[Bashstreet]

Electric cars are a joke 

I a way they jokingly outperform ICE cars?

No i mean they are joke in terms of resources pollutants and feasibility.

Yes. Not only do they pollute more (especially NOx), it is actually impossible to build an electric car.
We should keep using a non renewable resource in the future, because those will last forever.

The fact is a electric car will cause more pollution in its lifetime than regular combustion engine car.

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.

[Koen]

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.

Good, and I'm sure you're not wasting any time and resources in your research. Good luck !

[Bashstreet]

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.

Good, and I'm sure you're not wasting any time and resources in your research. Good luck !

No point to get snappy.

I rather talk about facts than personal opinions or beliefs.
I am sorry if i offended your sensibilities when i pointed out the issues with current electric cars.
If you take personally any critique toward particular technology i would suggest you might want to stop being cultist 

[Koen]

Your answer is rubbish and a fair warning there's no point discussing with you. Resources and time are theirs to waste.

[Bashstreet]

Your answer is rubbish and a fair warning there's no point discussing with you. Resources and time are theirs to waste.

Now now do not get your knickers twisted over disagreement of value or feasibility of certain technology.
You do start sounding more and more like some cultist 

[tszaboo]

Electric cars are a joke 

I a way they jokingly outperform ICE cars?

No i mean they are joke in terms of resources pollutants and feasibility.

Yes. Not only do they pollute more (especially NOx), it is actually impossible to build an electric car.
We should keep using a non renewable resource in the future, because those will last forever.

The fact is a electric car will cause more pollution in its lifetime than regular combustion engine car.

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.

Oh, really, which part? Dont tell me the battery.

[Bashstreet]

Electric cars are a joke 

I a way they jokingly outperform ICE cars?

No i mean they are joke in terms of resources pollutants and feasibility.

Yes. Not only do they pollute more (especially NOx), it is actually impossible to build an electric car.
We should keep using a non renewable resource in the future, because those will last forever.

The fact is a electric car will cause more pollution in its lifetime than regular combustion engine car.

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.

Oh, really, which part? Dont tell me the battery.

Please no more putt-hurt fanatics .

[tszaboo]

Please no more putt-hurt fanatics .

I'm not hurt. I'm laughing at you. Good thing the UK politicians decided this for you. Once in a while they get something right. So enjoy your last 23 years with your diesel tractor.

[Bashstreet]

Please no more putt-hurt fanatics .

I'm not hurt. I'm laughing at you. Good thing the UK politicians decided this for you. Once in a while they get something right. So enjoy your last 23 years with your diesel tractor.

Please do not get so salty about things.

I purely pointed out issues with particular technology.

This is the problem with cults.

If you dare to question a cults dogmas you are a heretic.

Now please try to stop acting like a fruitcake and try post something productive rather than try target me with immature attempts of insult.

We are both adults here so behave. THX!

[Someone]

The fact is a electric car will cause more pollution in its lifetime than regular combustion engine car.

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.

Oh, really, which part? Dont tell me the battery.

Analysis of lifecycle impacts from different car types can produce numbers all over the place, its easy to find well produced reports which say a battery electric vehicle is more polluting than conventional vehicles:
http://kimmoklemola.fi/data/documents/SF-comparison-USA-20160110.pdf
"?Lifecycle impacts of Tesla model S85 and Volkswagen Passat"
A lot depends on the mix of electricity generation assumed, and recycling/recovery/waste costs for the batteries which are yet to be proven in practice and will likely have changed substantially over the life of the vehicle. What the world needs is smaller/slower/short range vehicles for urban environment if they want to make a big change in energy use.

[tszaboo]

The fact is a electric car will cause more pollution in its lifetime than regular combustion engine car.

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.

Oh, really, which part? Dont tell me the battery.

Analysis of lifecycle impacts from different car types can produce numbers all over the place, its easy to find well produced reports which say a battery electric vehicle is more polluting than conventional vehicles:
http://kimmoklemola.fi/data/documents/SF-comparison-USA-20160110.pdf
"?Lifecycle impacts of Tesla model S85 and Volkswagen Passat"
A lot depends on the mix of electricity generation assumed, and recycling/recovery/waste costs for the batteries which are yet to be proven in practice and will likely have changed substantially over the life of the vehicle. What the world needs is smaller/slower/short range vehicles for urban environment if they want to make a big change in energy use.

Yeah, in the USA. Doh. Please dont use them as an example. They use 33% coal and 33% gas as main source of electricity. The worst polluters of the world after china. In a country, like Sweden, driving an electric car is greener than riding a bicycle. And other european countries are going in that direction. and even then I question the validity of those numbers.

We dont need a bunch of hippi cars. They are pathetic. All of them has a name like "smart" and IQ, while they should be named: "I dont have money for a proper car" .  And a "smart" with a 0.6 liter engine uses more fuel than a full sized hybrid.

[wraper]

Yeah, in the USA. Doh. Please dont use them as an example. They use 33% coal and 33% gas as main source of electricity. The worst polluters of the world after china.

In absolute numbers yes. If comparing pollution produced per capita, China turns out super green compared to US.

[vk6zgo]

Tesla notes on its website that the semi-truck will consume “less than 2 kWh / mile”. If we’re to factor in a worst case scenario of 2 kWh of energy used per mile travelled, this would equate to 800 kWh of energy consumed in 400 miles (644 km) of travel. Tesla’s Megacharger would need to have a tremendous power output of 1.6 MW, or thirteen times the power level of a standard Supercharger to be able to replenish 400 miles of battery range in 30 minutes. This, of course, is based on the assumption that the Tesla Semi will consume 2 kWh of energy per mile which in reality will probably be less, as Tesla notes.

That would be a problem challenge.

I can see several major problems for the Tesla truck in Australian long distance work

400 miles may be a useful range in Europe or parts of the USA, where reasonable sized cities are around that distance or less apart.

In many parts of Australia, the places around 400 miles apart may well be "roadhouses" in the middle of nowhere, with a bunch of fuel pumps, a restaurant/fast food place, & that's all!
Usually, these are powered by a largish solar array, with a standby diesel, but in some cases, a diesel alone is used.

Such a setup would be unable to supply enough energy to operate one "megacharger", whereas even the smallest sites can refuel several diesel trucks simultaneously.
Even if they could do one charger, with, say, 4 Tesla trucks, lined up, the last arrival will be waiting for 2 hours, not 30 minutes.

Another thing is the very poor ground clearance----- there are still truck routes which traverse unsealed roads, although they are usually quite good ones, (in the dry season ).
In the "wet", all bets are off, & ground clearance becomes important.

All of the above means that the best "fit" for Tesla trucks is urban delivery, where their advantages  are more evident, whilst their shortcomings are not so important.

[mtdoc]

Yeah, in the USA. Doh. Please dont use them as an example. They use 33% coal and 33% gas as main source of electricity. The worst polluters of the world after china.

In absolute numbers yes. If comparing pollution produced per capita, China turns out super green compared to US.

Yeah, I believe China also has the fastest renewable energy growth rate.  It's kind of a chicken and egg problem - they need to produce large amounts of PV under their current paradigm of electricity production in order for PV adoption to grow at a high rate.  Same for other low carbon sources -  hydro and geothermal. Of course while they are trying to do that their overall energy use is growing as their economy grows.

IMHO - in the end it's a Red Queen's Race - for China and all countries. In the end - we'll have a greater percentage of electricity production from PV but it will only be  because our total energy consumption will fall - not by choice but by necessity.

[jonovid]

it would be interesting    would like to see TESLA make transformers! autobots & decepticons   construction machinery
love robots ..But not in to the Co2 politics.

[Someone]

The fact is a electric car will cause more pollution in its lifetime than regular combustion engine car.

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.

Oh, really, which part? Dont tell me the battery.

Analysis of lifecycle impacts from different car types can produce numbers all over the place, its easy to find well produced reports which say a battery electric vehicle is more polluting than conventional vehicles:
http://kimmoklemola.fi/data/documents/SF-comparison-USA-20160110.pdf
"?Lifecycle impacts of Tesla model S85 and Volkswagen Passat"
A lot depends on the mix of electricity generation assumed, and recycling/recovery/waste costs for the batteries which are yet to be proven in practice and will likely have changed substantially over the life of the vehicle. What the world needs is smaller/slower/short range vehicles for urban environment if they want to make a big change in energy use.

Yeah, in the USA. Doh. Please dont use them as an example. They use 33% coal and 33% gas as main source of electricity. The worst polluters of the world after china. In a country, like Sweden, driving an electric car is greener than riding a bicycle. And other european countries are going in that direction. and even then I question the validity of those numbers.

We dont need a bunch of hippi cars. They are pathetic. All of them has a name like "smart" and IQ, while they should be named: "I dont have money for a proper car" .  And a "smart" with a 0.6 liter engine uses more fuel than a full sized hybrid.

Clearly you didn't read through the linked paper, the majority of the lifecycle "costs" can be incurred in hypothetical recycling of the product at end of life. These processes of recycling metal in existing cars is well established but inflating the expected lifecycle of battery vehicles.

You're welcome to provide some reference for your claim that an electric car is "greener" than a bicycle but very few people would agree with that:
http://www.eurobike-show.com/eb-wAssets/daten/rahmenprogramm/pdf/LifeCycleAssessment_DelDuce_englisch.pdf
Especially when you can consider an electric bicycle which eliminates the "petrol equivalent" of food conversion factor that seems to dominate people who think bicycles are an inefficient form of transport.

[3roomlab]

Another thing is the very poor ground clearance----- there are still truck routes which traverse unsealed roads, although they are usually quite good ones, (in the dry season ).
In the "wet", all bets are off, & ground clearance becomes important.

haha i saw that 1 too i was thinking the same as you
but i also noticed in 1 of the TESLA visitor's video, 1 of the guys shot a view into the axle area, and it appears the axle may have hydraulics? adjustable ground clearance? maybe?

eCANTER from mitsubishi

launched before TESLA's
217mi range (kinda short for large cities?)
11ton load
83kWh battery (0.38kWh/mi ??), this kinda makes TESLA semi look very inefficient?

[MT]

Clearly, the audience hysterically cheering and recklessly applauding in the video is not truckers at all, rather clueless
pro environmental leftist liberal hipsters who cant tell the difference between spruce and pine as real heavy haulers do!

[Rick Law]

When I first caught the article, I read it in detail and it occurred to me that the whole thing is likely probably just a publicity stunt.

The benefits they mention (such as auto-pilot, "train" them together, etc.) are not things that cannot be done with diesel powered trucks.  Today's diesel trucks are largely electronically controlled anyhow so it being fully electric may make the tasks easier but in no way game changing.

This Tesla truck is certainly not a pioneer of heavy duty electric mobility either.  Besides the large number of trains/subways carrying heavy loads using electric motor, many large gigantic earth-movers dump trucks seen in open-pit mines are electrically driven using diesel–electric transmission.  The Tesla, as oppose to running a diesel to generate the electricity by running an electrical motor, the Tesla truck merely stored the energy with batteries first.  The rest of the electrical drive train is a much-deployed technology already

That "store it first" of course bring up the main issue -- the range. 

It is easy to say range of X miles, but how is it measured?  Does the math include accelerating the load, and if so, accelerate to what speed and how many times?  After all, we here all understand that once the truck is moving, the energy need is then just to overcome friction and air-resistance.  In the news story, with the repeated mention of putting multiple trucks following closely, it is reasonable to assume there will be more "middle of the pack" trucks than lead truck.  So it invites the other question: "Is that truck dragging when that X mile range is mathematically achieved?"   The range of the lead (and tail) truck baring the main force of the air resistance would have a very different range when compared to the truck in the middle of the pack.

After thinking a bit about those issues, I came to the conclusion that it was just a move to keep the Tesla name in people's minds rather than something new/revolutionary that is real.

[vk6zgo]

Clearly, the audience hysterically cheering and recklessly applauding in the video is not truckers at all, rather clueless
pro environmental leftist liberal hipsters who cant tell the difference between spruce and pine as real heavy haulers do!

Or, maybe "rent a crowd"!

[Brumby]

Electric cars are a joke 

I a way they jokingly outperform ICE cars?

No i mean they are joke in terms of resources pollutants and feasibility.

I won't get into the schoolyard antics that followed this comment earlier - but I do have this observation...

Being hypercritical of today's electric vehicles is, in my view, much the same as writing off the Sopwith Camel as a nice toy, but useless for commercial aviation.

It's early days - and I believe exploring technology in every direction possible is essential to find optimal solutions.  That includes travelling down paths that may fail terribly - but at least we would then know there was no future in them.

However, even if a journey is started in a direction that seems less than optimistic at the outset, you may well encounter a magic moment when something spectacular comes to the fore.

You never know until you check out all the ideas .... even the "dumb" ones.

[expinkolator]

I came to the conclusion that it was just a move to keep the Tesla name in people's minds rather than something new/revolutionary that is real.

More like to keep people's minds off the farcical solar city buyout and the 3k staff they sacked.
Off the model X being in the top 10 least reliable cars.
Off high Tesla insurance costs due to ridiculously expensive repair costs.
Off the flat model S sales.
Off the model 3's they have not made and are not making.
Off the $480k per hour they have been burning for the last 12 months.
Off the increasing competition from other manufacturers who already know how to make quality cars in volume.

One day they will run out of 'bigger fool' investors although I read Musk plans to turn customers into 'bigger fools' by getting them to pay in advance.

[Brumby]

You never know until you check out all the ideas .... even the "dumb" ones.

But sometimes people don't know when to stop...  like Solar Freakin' Roadways.

[Simon]

Your answer is rubbish and a fair warning there's no point discussing with you. Resources and time are theirs to waste.

Now now do not get your knickers twisted over disagreement of value or feasibility of certain technology.
You do start sounding more and more like some cultist 

I dare say you are the cultist as you bring no facts to the debate just outlandish assertions designed to stir up and argument. Please post your evidence or go away and stop trolling (in plain English that means consider yourself warned and in the member for banning list).

[AG6QR]

Tesla notes on its website that the semi-truck will consume “less than 2 kWh / mile”. If we’re to factor in a worst case scenario of 2 kWh of energy used per mile travelled, this would equate to 800 kWh of energy consumed in 400 miles (644 km) of travel. Tesla’s Megacharger would need to have a tremendous power output of 1.6 MW, or thirteen times the power level of a standard Supercharger to be able to replenish 400 miles of battery range in 30 minutes. This, of course, is based on the assumption that the Tesla Semi will consume 2 kWh of energy per mile which in reality will probably be less, as Tesla notes.

That would be a problem challenge.

Just for fun, I did some quick measurements and back-of-the-envelope calculations for comparison.

I refueled my gasoline-powered car today, and it took 11 seconds per gallon to fill the tank (for those of you in countries that use reasonable units, that's roughly 3 seconds per liter).  A gallon of gasoline has about 122 megajoules of energy.  That works out to roughly 11 megajoules per second of energy transfer.  A watt is a joule per second, so that gas pump is transferring energy at a rate of 11 megawatts!  I don't believe my neighborhood gas pump is particularly fast compared to others.  I welcome others to chime in with their own measurements and calculations.

Some may quibble that the energy in gasoline isn't directly comparable to electrical energy, since thermodynamics tells us that it's less efficient to turn gasoline energy into mechanical work than it is to turn electricity into work.  That's true, but it's at least partly countered by the fact that the process of charging and discharging a battery is not particularly efficient, particularly if the charging rate approaches anything near the megawatt range. 

It's also true that really rapid refueling/recharging is rarely essential, particularly if it's practical to charge overnight at home.

But this exercise does help explain why we charge electric cars slowly at home or in parking lots, rather than quickly at service stations.

[Brumby]

Your answer is rubbish and a fair warning there's no point discussing with you. Resources and time are theirs to waste.

Now now do not get your knickers twisted over disagreement of value or feasibility of certain technology.
You do start sounding more and more like some cultist 

I dare say you are the cultist as you bring no facts to the debate just outlandish assertions designed to stir up and argument. Please post your evidence or go away and stop trolling (in plain English that means consider yourself warned and in the member for banning list).

Beware the Lord High Executioner...!

[bd139]

Been doing some thinking about charge rates and times based on people I have directly spoken to and I reckon the main reason people object to electric cars is because they are dumbasses who have trouble planning ahead and don’t want to look like idiots with a dead car on the side of the road. Look at the state of mobile phones. Someone gets home, stuffs the phone on the table and goes to sleep without looking at it. Then they get up in the morning, do a panic charge and fall out of the door with 45% left and wing it, possibly with it dumping early afternoon and then inevitably sending the email “has anyone got a lightning cable I can borrow” which the lender will never see again.  This is of course someone holding an iPhone with a cracked screen that they can’t afford to repair and are waiting for the contract to run out. They can’t get away with the quickly roll into the gas station and fill it up sort of thinking and I think this fills them with primitive rage and disdain for the technology which leads to irrationally looking for ways to discredit it. Discredit comes in any form from attacking the manufacturers to sticking fingers in their ears and filling up that knackered old diesel with a dead DPF (guilty there) and watching the world slowly burn.

My biggest fear is never the technology but the end users. In fact my biggest fear is the fear that end users have of change and planning.

Now I know a guy with a model S, another forum member here actually, and he’s not going to post on these threads because he’s sitting in it smiling.

[Agent24]

Quote from: rx8pilot on Yesterday at 06:20:03 AM

I love the technology development but am also dubious about the ability to supply the massive number of batteries and electronics without creating a problem similar to fossil fuels. For these idea to make an impact that Elon seems to be hoping for - generation and storage of power has to improve dramatically and somehow humanity will have to avoid going to war over the various rare and critical minerals needed.

I have thought the same... is mining precious metals and churning out millions of batteries destined for e-waste really any better ecologically than fossil fuel? I can't see it. To me it's just the same problem in a different form. The root cause is not solved.

[Simon]

My biggest fear is never the technology but the end users. In fact my biggest fear is the fear that end users have of change and planning.

Now I know a guy with a model S, another forum member here actually, and he’s not going to post on these threads because he’s sitting in it smiling.

This is what I keep saying to people, stop blaming the technology, have a go instead at those promising you you can misuse it. Or stop expecting electric and petrol to be interchangeable, the electric will bring advantages you never had with petrol but you can't expect the same rules if you want the benefits.

[Brumby]

... but you can't expect the same rules if you want the benefits.

If you're in the middle of the field and you pick the ball up and run with it, you're no longer playing soccer.

[woody]

I have thought the same... is mining precious metals and churning out millions of batteries destined for e-waste really any better ecologically than fossil fuel? I can't see it. To me it's just the same problem in a different form. The root cause is not solved.

Not entirely the same problem. Fossil creates a problem at the tailpipe side of things. Batteries create a problem at the source side. The fossil problem is much harder to manage (gazillion tailpipes in lots of forms) than the battery problem (a limited number of mines, a manageable form when used up). Stating that batteries are designed for e-waste is a bit harsh (assuming you do not run your Model S on AA); batteries can be recycled to high percentages; the reason that this does not happen atm is that mining the materials needed is cheaper than recycling them That will change 

[bd139]

Recycling the newer battery tech is pretty easy as well.

I reckon some of the motivation of SpaceX existing is resource based as well. At some point we will be dependent on energy storage as opportunistic scavengers so there will be value in getting it from elsewhere.

[tszaboo]

The fact is a electric car will cause more pollution in its lifetime than regular combustion engine car.

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.

Oh, really, which part? Dont tell me the battery.

Analysis of lifecycle impacts from different car types can produce numbers all over the place, its easy to find well produced reports which say a battery electric vehicle is more polluting than conventional vehicles:
http://kimmoklemola.fi/data/documents/SF-comparison-USA-20160110.pdf
"?Lifecycle impacts of Tesla model S85 and Volkswagen Passat"
A lot depends on the mix of electricity generation assumed, and recycling/recovery/waste costs for the batteries which are yet to be proven in practice and will likely have changed substantially over the life of the vehicle. What the world needs is smaller/slower/short range vehicles for urban environment if they want to make a big change in energy use.

Yeah, in the USA. Doh. Please dont use them as an example. They use 33% coal and 33% gas as main source of electricity. The worst polluters of the world after china. In a country, like Sweden, driving an electric car is greener than riding a bicycle. And other european countries are going in that direction. and even then I question the validity of those numbers.

We dont need a bunch of hippi cars. They are pathetic. All of them has a name like "smart" and IQ, while they should be named: "I dont have money for a proper car" .  And a "smart" with a 0.6 liter engine uses more fuel than a full sized hybrid.

Clearly you didn't read through the linked paper, the majority of the lifecycle "costs" can be incurred in hypothetical recycling of the product at end of life. These processes of recycling metal in existing cars is well established but inflating the expected lifecycle of battery vehicles.

You're welcome to provide some reference for your claim that an electric car is "greener" than a bicycle but very few people would agree with that:
http://www.eurobike-show.com/eb-wAssets/daten/rahmenprogramm/pdf/LifeCycleAssessment_DelDuce_englisch.pdf
Especially when you can consider an electric bicycle which eliminates the "petrol equivalent" of food conversion factor that seems to dominate people who think bicycles are an inefficient form of transport.

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

Every single study you link, ignores the advances in battery technology. In about 2 years solid-state lithium-ion batteries will take over, making huge improvement for the batteries. And no, this doesnt come from Cheng Hung at the whatever US university lab. This comes from toyota.

Also, you ignore the fact that electricity generation will shift to sustainable sources.
And that electric car manufacturers tend to use renewable for their manufacturing.

How much does the combustion engine left? Maybe some 10% improvement with the mazda compression engine? 30-40% if all cars go hybrid? Oh wait, that doesnt count, hybrids have all those dirty batteries.

[wraper]

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.

[tszaboo]

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car?

What about them. I already said in this thread that USA has to get it's shit together.

[fubar.gr]

Professional trucker here!

Elon Musk in his presentation omitted one of the most important information about the truck: How much does it weigh?

I've seen some articles wrongly stating that the truck is capable of hauling a 80000lbs (~37 ton) payload. This is wrong. This number is the maximum allowed gross vehicle weight for public roads, ie the combined weigh of the truck, trailer and payload.

In most European countries, the maximum gross vehicle weight is 40 tons. Typically, a diesel truck weighs around 8 to 9 tons and another 8 to 9 tons for the trailer. This is 16-18 tons for the tractor-trailer combination, so this leaves 22 to 24 tons for useful payload.

It is inevitable that the Tesla truck will be heavier due to the weigh of the batteries. The 100KWh Tesla S battery weighs around 500 kilos. If the truck has a 1MWh battery, then the extra weight should be around 5 tons.

Some analysts believe that they won't use the Tesla S cells, but the powerwall storage cells which have better cycling characteristics, but worse energy density. So the battery pack could be well over 5 tons.

Effectively, this truck will have a 20-25% less useful payload compared to a diesel truck.


Also there were some weird and false claims in that presentation. For example it was claimed that even the best diesel tractors fully laden can only do 45mph over a 5% incline, while the Tesla can do 65mph. In Europe semi truck speed is electronically limited to 90Km/h (56mph) and the best tractors (Scania R730 or Volvo FH16 750) have no problem maintaining that speed over a 5% incline.

BTW this is what happens when you accelerate hard a powerful diesel truck (this is probably 60 tons or more)




Another weird claim is that windscreens crack on average once a year. Excluding dump trucks working on mines and quarrys (lots of rocks getting flinged around) I am not aware of trucks used on paved roads having their windshield cracked with that regularity.

Also they claim 1 million miles without breakdowns. Judging from all the problems they had so far with reliability issues, replacing hundreds of defective Drive Units, sometimes twice or thrice on the same car, I can't take that claim seriously.

[rrinker]

 I don't know what they put in those things over there, but on grades here in the US, a fully loaded semi maintaining 45mph is only a dream to most. Plenty of places even in my small part of the country where semis can barely crawl up some of the hills, the worst ones luckily have multiple lanes with trucks forbidden in the left most ones, so there is room for one truck crawling at 43mph to overtake the one crawling at 40mph, and still a lane for all the cars which can easily maintain the 65mph limit to get past all of it.

Battery powered heavy lading transport is certainly nothing new - these were built starting in 1928, hybrid style plus overhead and/or third rail power

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GE_three-power_boxcab

[Zero999]

Coal fired trucks!

That's not so crazy at all. It's easier to convert a diesel/petrol vehicle to run off coal, than to run off electricity. All that's needed is a gasifier. Forget coal, that's not green, the gasifier will work from wood, grown in sustainable plantations.

[CM800]

Also they claim 1 million miles without breakdowns. Judging from all the problems they had so far with reliability issues, replacing hundreds of defective Drive Units, sometimes twice or thrice on the same car, I can't take that claim seriously.

Well, he did promise a warrenty of 1 million miles, soo, I'd say they are happy to foot the bill if they fail on that front.

[Lord of nothing]

  Damn Good someone had and good invention years ago it called Metrical System.
Maybe someone here heard about? 
Why not use them? Just 98% of all Country in the World do it.
So everyone here can use it to.   

[Simon]

Coal fired trucks!

That's not so crazy at all. It's easier to convert a diesel/petrol vehicle to run off coal, than to run off electricity. All that's needed is a gasifier. Forget coal, that's not green, the gasifier will work from wood, grown in sustainable plantations.

While technically feasilble as you say no amount of growing more trees will keep up with fueling our transport.

[Zero999]

Coal fired trucks!

That's not so crazy at all. It's easier to convert a diesel/petrol vehicle to run off coal, than to run off electricity. All that's needed is a gasifier. Forget coal, that's not green, the gasifier will work from wood, grown in sustainable plantations.

While technically feasilble as you say no amount of growing more trees will keep up with fueling our transport.

UK no. Canada and the US is more feasible. In any case, it takes around 15 minutes to fire up the gasifier and it can't be shut down instantly either, so is no good for short journeys.
Some videos:
https://youtu.be/AldzOu0TFSE
https://youtu.be/X3KipK49v7g

[tszaboo]

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.

Please dont edit posts, people already replied to.

[wraper]

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.

Please dont edit posts, people already replied to.

If you look at your post and time I edited it, it was 5 minutes after I first posted and just 19 seconds after you replied. I was not going to edit it back just because I added some things while you replied.

[tszaboo]

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.

Please dont edit posts, people already replied to.

If you look at your post and time I edited it, it was 5 minutes after I first posted and just 19 seconds after you replied. I was not going to edit it back just because I added some things while you replied.

Well fair enough. I think though that you are wrong about your assumption. I see a lot of Belgians go fat, as soon as they got a car instead of a bike. Because they get used to eating more.

[Zero999]

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.

Please dont edit posts, people already replied to.

If you look at your post and time I edited it, it was 5 minutes after I first posted and just 19 seconds after you replied. I was not going to edit it back just because I added some things while you replied.

Well fair enough. I think though that you are wrong about your assumption. I see a lot of Belgians go fat, as soon as they got a car instead of a bike. Because they get used to eating more.

It may be true that people gain weight, when they cease exercising, but I don't think it's as simple as they're used to eating a lot. I'm reasonably active (I often go cycling, both to and from work and often in my lunch break) and I do notice I eat more, after periods of increased activity and less, when inactive, yet my weight remains fairly constant. I think lack of exercise often predisposes one to lose lean body mass and gain fat, but the latter isn't always the case, probably due to genetics, more than anything else. Scientists haven't figured out why some people get fat and others don't, despite both groups having a sedentary lifestyle and access to high energy food.

[Someone]

The fact is a electric car will cause more pollution in its lifetime than regular combustion engine car.

They just are dead end technology and waste of resources and effort.

More feasible solutions hopefully will appear in future.

Oh, really, which part? Dont tell me the battery.

Analysis of lifecycle impacts from different car types can produce numbers all over the place, its easy to find well produced reports which say a battery electric vehicle is more polluting than conventional vehicles:
http://kimmoklemola.fi/data/documents/SF-comparison-USA-20160110.pdf
"?Lifecycle impacts of Tesla model S85 and Volkswagen Passat"
A lot depends on the mix of electricity generation assumed, and recycling/recovery/waste costs for the batteries which are yet to be proven in practice and will likely have changed substantially over the life of the vehicle. What the world needs is smaller/slower/short range vehicles for urban environment if they want to make a big change in energy use.

Yeah, in the USA. Doh. Please dont use them as an example. They use 33% coal and 33% gas as main source of electricity. The worst polluters of the world after china. In a country, like Sweden, driving an electric car is greener than riding a bicycle. And other european countries are going in that direction. and even then I question the validity of those numbers.

We dont need a bunch of hippi cars. They are pathetic. All of them has a name like "smart" and IQ, while they should be named: "I dont have money for a proper car" .  And a "smart" with a 0.6 liter engine uses more fuel than a full sized hybrid.

Clearly you didn't read through the linked paper, the majority of the lifecycle "costs" can be incurred in hypothetical recycling of the product at end of life. These processes of recycling metal in existing cars is well established but inflating the expected lifecycle of battery vehicles.

You're welcome to provide some reference for your claim that an electric car is "greener" than a bicycle but very few people would agree with that:
http://www.eurobike-show.com/eb-wAssets/daten/rahmenprogramm/pdf/LifeCycleAssessment_DelDuce_englisch.pdf
Especially when you can consider an electric bicycle which eliminates the "petrol equivalent" of food conversion factor that seems to dominate people who think bicycles are an inefficient form of transport.

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

Every single study you link, ignores the advances in battery technology. In about 2 years solid-state lithium-ion batteries will take over, making huge improvement for the batteries. And no, this doesnt come from Cheng Hung at the whatever US university lab. This comes from toyota.

Also, you ignore the fact that electricity generation will shift to sustainable sources.
And that electric car manufacturers tend to use renewable for their manufacturing.

How much does the combustion engine left? Maybe some 10% improvement with the mazda compression engine? 30-40% if all cars go hybrid? Oh wait, that doesnt count, hybrids have all those dirty batteries.

Seems you've tried to join multiple points together, I provided an example of an analysis that says a battery car is more polluting/energy intensive over its life because they inflate the battery recycling costs. This might be valid on todays industry which does well at recycling conventional cars, but in the future its likely that battery cars will be easier to recycle. Electric cars are not wildly more green than the alternatives and certainly not greener than cycling once you complete a full lifecycle analysis including infrastructure and disposal/recycling, and its easy to find works which show them in this competitive space depending on the source of the electricity.

https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/

This famous "work" is pure propaganda, we could similarly analyse a car operating on only pure hexane as a fuel (a nice odour free alternative to mixed hydrocarbon petrol) which would be similarly wildly inefficient. Or perhaps consider some realistic numbers:
https://www.withouthotair.com/c13/page_79.shtml
Cycling is more energy efficient than walking, so you need to use wildly unrealistic corner cases for both modes to say that walking or cycling is higher impact than driving. The numbers using realistic or country/region/world averages for electricity and food energy/environmental intensity show that walking and cycling are much more "green" than driving.

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

What about obese american who eats a lot of meat and drives a big fuel inefficient car? I don't think that cycling will necessarily make you a meat eater or eat more than average person who drives car. Also if someone don't do cycling, might just spend energy in a gym.

Indeed, the link to that post has comments which rubbish the numbers right off the start. Trouble is once you start tying to add in externalities such as loss of life from exhaust emissions or lack of exercise the uncertainty grows quickly on multiplicative contributions. But even on the simple things such as transport energy efficiency where its easily shown that a bicycle uses around 10x less energy to move the same distance as a car (take an electric bicycle and an electric car and give them the same amount of charge) yet people will fight tooth and nail to try and justify their comfortable status quo.

[3roomlab]

i found this interesting article describing battery degradation over time/range
https://www.teslacentral.com/worried-about-tesla-battery-degradation-its-23-miles-every-100000-driven

and that leads to this group of over 900 TESLA users logging their battery data
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/t024bMoRiDPIDialGnuKPsg/edit#gid=1669966328
and a few users have surpassed 0.25 million km (under 4 years of use) = 39k miles per year.

what is interesting about the data is that, 18 out of 396 users have replaced their batteries (in what looks like first 4 years of usage?). and if i depend on 39k km/yr mileage rate, it will take 41-ish years to reach 1 million miles, about 32 changes of tires? in ICE terms, how many servicing runs would that require?

[Monkeh]

Damn Good someone had and good invention years ago it called Metrical System.
Maybe someone here heard about? 
Why not use them? Just 98% of all Country in the World do it.
So everyone here can use it to.   

Perhaps you could participate in the topic instead of whinging that you don't understand the units.

[Zero999]

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

That article makes an assumption: someone on an average US diet gets the extra calories, required for the commute, from animal products, rather than plants. It also talks about carnivorous cyclists, which is very misleading. Very few people are carnivorous.  It does site the paleo diet as being bad for the environment, but very few people eat like that today, other than Eskimos and some fitness freaks. In reality, most humans are omnivores.

I'm omnivorous. I haven't analysed my diet, but I'm pretty sure my commuting calories come more from carbohydrates (plant based), than animal products, since when I'm active, I crave sweet food and carbohydrates, rather than meat.

The article also ignores the energy required to manufacture and recycle the car vs the bicycle.

The main point I think that article highlights is how bad the agricultural industry is for the environment.

[Fungus]

I'd like to see how the range holds up when the thinlg is fully loaded with 44 tons of stuff is attached to this truck...

Elon says the quoted range is at full load and at highway speeds.

Also 1.6 MW for each charger?? That will no doubt put a huge stress on the power grid if they are to have more than few trucks charging per city

The great thing about trucks is that they don't go into cities much.

[tszaboo]

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

That article makes an assumption: someone on an average US diet gets the extra calories, required for the commute, from animal products, rather than plants. It also talks about carnivorous cyclists, which is very misleading. Very few people are carnivorous.  It does site the paleo diet as being bad for the environment, but very few people eat like that today, other than Eskimos and some fitness freaks. In reality, most humans are omnivores.

I'm omnivorous. I haven't analysed my diet, but I'm pretty sure my commuting calories come more from carbohydrates (plant based), than animal products, since when I'm active, I crave sweet food and carbohydrates, rather than meat.

The article also ignores the energy required to manufacture and recycle the car vs the bicycle.

The main point I think that article highlights is how bad the agricultural industry is for the environment.

As I said, I also take this numbers with a grain of salt. What we need to understand is:
1) Biking is not the "infinitely better green future" some people think it is.
2) Over the last 90 years, the combustion engine improved, but this is preatty much it. It will not get infinitely better, it will not be a magical button which gets rid of CO2 and the pollution
3) Electric cars are not polluting when they are being used. There is some dust of course.
4) With the shifting power generation to renewable energy, the electricity required will be less polluting. The manufacturing of the car will be less polluting. The batteries will be less polluting. Recycling is just energy. Did you know, there is a 90% recycling rate on automotive lead acid batteries worldwide? Guess what will happen to lithium.
Clearly, electric cars alone, or with coal power plants is a bad idea. And I dont really care, if it takes 2 times as much energy to make something, if that energy is from a green source. Nothing can be made as clean, as a self-driving electric cars, manufactured, charged and recycled with solar and wind power.

[Lord of nothing]

3) Electric cars are not polluting when they are being used.

When the Power come from Nuclear, Coal, Gas,... are better than Diesel, Bensina?

[2N3055]

While my biggest desire is to ban diesel, and I would prefer to drive fully electric cars, infrastructure is fundamental problem.

I will illustrate with example from Croatia. Current capacity of network is around 4200 MW. That means that you can have 4200 MW of simultaneous load on whole Croatia network before we overload network. That is maximum capacity. If we want spend more than that we need to import electricity or build capacity. 

We have around 820-830 gas stations in the country.  If every single one installs only 4 Mega chargers, that would  well exceed electricity producing capacity of the whole country.
It would mean we would have to double number of existing power plants... Not really, because we could build smaller number of larger ones, but to illustrate it graphically, double the existing number.. Of course power plants can be green type.

Also whole electro-distribution network would have to double in capacity...

That is HUUGE infrastructural investment... And it would take 20 years to be made...  It is of course doable, but not realistic at this moment...
At this moment nobody wants to pay for it...

If anybody discovers energy to customer distribution model that is as economical as gasoline today, that will be the moment when things might change...

[Zero999]

You just linked a paper, which directly contradicted your previous point, and proving mine. Thank you, saved a lot of trouble. But the second paper completely ignored food to road efficiency.
https://momentummag.com/carnivorous-cyclists-contribute-global-warming-vegan-drivers-argues-harvard-researcher/ Here is an article, including it. In this one, even a toyota prius is more economic friendly than biking. I dont completely agree with this, but it is an indicator, that biking is worse than people describe it.

That article makes an assumption: someone on an average US diet gets the extra calories, required for the commute, from animal products, rather than plants. It also talks about carnivorous cyclists, which is very misleading. Very few people are carnivorous.  It does site the paleo diet as being bad for the environment, but very few people eat like that today, other than Eskimos and some fitness freaks. In reality, most humans are omnivores.

I'm omnivorous. I haven't analysed my diet, but I'm pretty sure my commuting calories come more from carbohydrates (plant based), than animal products, since when I'm active, I crave sweet food and carbohydrates, rather than meat.

The article also ignores the energy required to manufacture and recycle the car vs the bicycle.

The main point I think that article highlights is how bad the agricultural industry is for the environment.

As I said, I also take this numbers with a grain of salt. What we need to understand is:
1) Biking is not the "infinitely better green future" some people think it is.

It can be. Change farming practises to ones which don't emit as much greenhouses gases and cut down on the distances food has to travel to the consumer.

2) Over the last 90 years, the combustion engine improved, but this is preatty much it. It will not get infinitely better, it will not be a magical button which gets rid of CO2 and the pollution

True, but biofuels* are a possibility, although not without their potential problems.

Note: that when I say biofuels, that could be wood gas used to power an internal combustion engine, to generate electricity, to charge electric cars, as well as biodiesel powered cars.

3) Electric cars are not polluting when they are being used. There is some dust of course.

So we shift the pollution away from the city to the nearby coal plant.

4) With the shifting power generation to renewable energy, the electricity required will be less polluting. The manufacturing of the car will be less polluting. The batteries will be less polluting. Recycling is just energy. Did you know, there is a 90% recycling rate on automotive lead acid batteries worldwide? Guess what will happen to lithium.
Clearly, electric cars alone, or with coal power plants is a bad idea. And I dont really care, if it takes 2 times as much energy to make something, if that energy is from a green source. Nothing can be made as clean, as a self-driving electric cars, manufactured, charged and recycled with solar and wind power.

The problem with renewables is storage and making sure charge there cars, when there's an excess of power on the grid and not when it's low.

[tszaboo]

3) Electric cars are not polluting when they are being used.

When the Power come from Nuclear, Coal, Gas,... are better than Diesel, Bensina?

You haven't read the rest of the post. Use renewable energy. And I would bet some money on this: a modern filtered coal plant produces less pollution, than a modern cheater WV diesel. Gas plants are almost clean, of course CO2 is still a problem.

Biofuel
Coal

Biofuel isnt a solution. We are struggling feeding the people as it is. For example, in Belgium, there just isnt any land left for agriculture. Coal plants have to go.

The problem with renewables is storage and making sure charge there cars, when there's an excess of power on the grid and not when it's low.

You say it is a problem, I say it is an opportunity.
There are solutions. We need more solar and wind energy to start with. And it is going to happen, just because it is economically better than anything else. Solar is so cheap, it is wort to make a plant, without incentives. Then, we can install P2G plants. Good thing about power storage with P2G is that you actually reduce the CO2 in the atmosphere.

You have to realize, nobody ever invested huge money into energy storage. It is expensive, and it needs futher development, right? I guess they said the same thing about nuclear power 50 years ago. "Oh nobody is going to invest that much money into one power plant" And then today you have big power plants, which provide 5-6 million people with power. One single plant. 10 billion EUR. Show me, anyone investing that much into energy storage. Maybe some pumped hydro plants.
But here is the thing: As solar power gets wider and wider adaptation, it will drive the price of energy negative on the market more and more often. It already happens. The market itself will create opportunities for energy storage.

That is HUUGE infrastructural investment... And it would take 20 years to be made...  It is of course doable, but not realistic at this moment...

Norway has a plan to switch to all electric cars by 2025. It is doable. more than 50% of cars currently sold are plug in hybrid or electric there. They have 10000 Charging stations right now.
I go to croatia very often. You are sitting on a huge treasure, countless sunny hours, and nobody seems to take advantage from it. It is really sad to see.

[Kilo Tango]

LPG is another clean'ish fuel. Its mainly Propane and burns cleaner than petrol. I converted my 14 year old Omega and its still much cleaner than modern diesels.

And as far as sunny countries, I was in Egypt recently, a fairly sunny place and there was no evidence of solar panels. I asked and was told they have to pay the regular price with no subsidies and payback was like 5-10 years so you needed a lot of faith to tie up all that money. Plus the exchange rate didn't help either.

So countries that have money and want alternative energy don't have enough solar to work well and countries that have plenty sun can't afford to convert. Its a strange world.

Ken

[bd139]

I’ll pass on the compressed gasses thanks: 

https://gfycat.com/VigilantZealousFirebelliedtoad

[Kilo Tango]

The current LPG set up is quite good. There is a pressure release valve built into the tank that vents any excess pressure outside the vehicle envelope; as it will be pure propane it will not burn until it meets air and gets ignited outside the vent tube. In the case of a vehicle fire, as the tank gets hot the propane will turn back into gas and vent to the atmosphere, where it will burn, yes, but so will petrol. Both petrol and LPG vehicles will explode given the right circumstances.

I wonder what an electric car lithium battery is like once ignited ?.

There will always be hazards carrying fuel, however if we can design a safe method of handling them AND EDUCATE THE PUBLIC IN THE CORRECT USE, then it should be OK.

Ken

[jonovid]

why do People still say CO2 is pollution?  its political. 
Al Gore's 2012 dooms-day hockey stick is a fraud. & today their is two or more alternative scientific theorys.
the sun, natural cycles, and global cooling.  if the earth's surface was covered with electronics. 
are we better for it.  not the house made of candy. - maybe its the house made of electronics. 
are we saying battery powered aviation is were we go next. better check the toy-box for some more inspiration.

[2N3055]

That is HUUGE infrastructural investment... And it would take 20 years to be made...  It is of course doable, but not realistic at this moment...

Norway has a plan to switch to all electric cars by 2025. It is doable. more than 50% of cars currently sold are plug in hybrid or electric there. They have 10000 Charging stations right now.
I go to croatia very often. You are sitting on a huge treasure, countless sunny hours, and nobody seems to take advantage from it. It is really sad to see.

In Croatia NOBODY buys electric cars.. And not because they are anti green... They are too expensive for what you get.. In Norway, few weeks ago there was an article in newspapers that electric cars are overloading electric distribution network at certain times. Nobody took them into account when planning capacity.. It's not so easy when you have to plan for something on country level....

I always like when people are ignoring realities..  You say we have  "all this treasure of countless sunny hours" ...

We are what, too lazy to plug the sun in to our arses that will give electricity..
If you have lots of sun, it doesn't mean solar panel plants are growing on the trees for free... You have to build huge infrastructure to be able to use sun, and it's very expensive..

I found US Dept of energy estimates from 2015 that estimate that capacity weighted average cost for building solar plants was on the order of 3000 USD per KW of installed power. 4200 MW of new installed power would be 3000 USD x 4200000 KW = 12,6 x10^9 USD

12,6 x10^9 USD is  1/3 of GDP of Croatia.  And upgrading distribution network would make total cost something like half of country's GDP.

And that is only capital cost to build.. Plants and network maintenance cost would double too...

Everybody wants to do it, until the point somebody has to pay for it... Than you realize it's not that easy... 


Don't get me wrong. You are 100% correct it could be done. You are 100% correct it should be done. You are 100% wrong it's easy.. You cannot compare Norway to Croatia. They have almost the same population but Norway has 9X bigger GDP... If you think that's irrelevant, you are wrong.

Regards,

Sinisa

[3roomlab]

While my biggest desire is to ban diesel, and I would prefer to drive fully electric cars, infrastructure is fundamental problem.

I will illustrate with example from Croatia....

I think it is maybe more of a direct "political" problem?

I would like to draw an example from the things I read coming from the situation in puerto rico. this is 1 of the post hurricane "maria" zones.

trump initially said, they have done enough for aids towards the country
http://www.smh.com.au/world/after-hurricane-maria-donald-trump-defends-puerto-rico-aid-effort-20170926-gypexs.html

and it is a country in financial and political crisis made worse by the hurricane
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bankrupt-puerto-rico-faces-direct-hit-hurricane-maria-n802431

and in comes whitefish projects to restore power,
www.nbcmontana.com/news/keci/whitefish-energy-working-on-puerto-rico-power-grid/629158601

but who is whitefish? oh boy ... is it a $1 company? this feels like solar roadways all over again!
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/27/white-house-distances-itself-from-whitefish-contract-with-puerto-rico.html

did elon musk pledge to restore puerto rico's power?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/06/elon-musk-could-help-rebuild-puerto-rico-solar-powered-electricity/

I think the 2nd set of boots on the ground made whitefish un-easy. whitefish got cancelled. but whitefish sends puerto rico a $83million bill anyway (for 45days of work?).
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/21/whitefish-halts-power-work-in-puerto-rico-over-83-million-its-owed.html

so whitefish is considered a post hurricane relief aid company, and they refused puerto rico from auditing its works, wait what?
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/357473-whitefish-energy-contract-bars-government-from-auditing-deal

so how will puerto rico government know what whitefish did to amount to $83million? (come to think of it, USA congress approved USD$36billion in total of aids, this is not looking very good?)

in any case, since there are some real techies (I think?) from TESLA on the ground, in about 20 days, solar power arrives
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41747065
but since all these energy supplying business is political, I wonder will there be a higher political hand to STOP TESLA from supplying more? I hope not. there are other bits of stories coming out of these hurricane areas like people who have working solar panels on the roofs, became a sort of aid centre.

So the above is a very interesting story to observe for the next few years, and many energy companies are likely not happy with TESLA now.
maybe croatia will ask TESLA to put some boots in croatia? (and other energy companies will go "NOooOoOoOoooOoooooo, I promise promise, im not whitefish, i swear im not ... ")

[tszaboo]

They have almost the same population but Norway has 9X bigger GDP... If you think that's irrelevant, you are wrong.

I'm from Hungary, and quite familiar with what the east European and southest European countries are facing, economically.
But here is just the thing: Do you think, it is possible, that countries like sweden got rich, because they think of the future. Belgium has 7% renewable. If someone installed a solar panel on his rooftop a few years ago, it payed itself back, and now he is earning money.
My parents installed their panels last year. Electricity bill is gone.
Hungary's solar power is booming, in 2018, it could reach 2100MW.  It is a tenfold increase in two years.  We could install more, but the installers are already 110% booked. Hungary's GDP is almost the same as croatia. It is not the money, which counts. You could take out a loan with 5% interest rate just to buy the solar, and it would be still worth it. Now, let me ask you a question. Would you put money in the bank, if it would pay you, say 15%?  You place there 1000 EUR, you do nothing else, it pays you 150 EUR every year (for say, 25 years).
Should your country do that? Why would it be a bad thing? A country can just take a loan or even print money to finance this. Hell, it is paying for itself, isnted of wiring just all our money to the midle east and russia. I know, I make it sound simple, but in reality, it is simple. The decision is political.
And statistics show, that each MW capacity creates about 5 jobs. And solar actually releases the grid, as the generation is closer to the consumption.

[2N3055]

Croatia is already printing too much money with no real economy..
We are already too much in debt, so no further loans would be prudent... 
We are more like Greece than like Norway.

Also, we are currently around 16% from renewables. We have considerable capacity in hydroelectric plants, that are going through modernization cycle now, and will almost double capacity when done. Hydro power is 4-5 times cheaper than solar, so it is economically responsible to first invest there..

Countries like Sweden are wealthy because of years of effort to produce balanced strong economy.. They have strong high tech manufacturing, services.. They have their own avio industry that produces likes of SAAB Gripen... Norway is full of oil.. All of western European countries are decades away from us, economy wise..

We basically came to exist by fragmentation of a complete country, in which all economy was distributed unevenly across republics..
And then when we separated, we basically got only parts of the car, not a whole one. Unconnected parts of economy, ecosystem that was incomplete...
Government patched together something not to fall apart and here we are.. What industry we had, disintegrated because it was left without support structure industry that ended across the border in other countries... Slowly, things are starting to rebuild on new principles, but it will take decades at this rate...

So with utmost respect to you and to the fact that what you say is right in principle, as a matter of priorities, we have more pressing problems to deal with than solar panels...

That is what I meant by realities...  I actually designed a car charger as a product few years ago, I wish electric car adoption was better but it isn't..

Thanks for a chat... If you happen to come to Croatia, if you plan to pass trough Rijeka, we can have a beer...

Regards,
Siniša

[Lord of nothing]

You are to late there is no free Money from the Hypo Alpe Adria anymore. 

[2N3055]

You are to late there is no free Money from the Hypo Alpe Adria anymore. 

Well if you want to be facetious about it, the way I heard it is that most of that money ended up in Austria anyways...
Our idiots got only pocket change.... And then Austrian and Croatian people payed for it...

But you are exactly hitting the point my friend.. If it is "investment" and such good business, why it has to be so heavily subsidized...?
It is not an investment, it is a strategic move to energy sources that are more expensive, but for a good reason...

Take care!!

[vk6zgo]

I'd like to see how the range holds up when the thinlg is fully loaded with 44 tons of stuff is attached to this truck...

Elon says the quoted range is at full load and at highway speeds.

Also 1.6 MW for each charger?? That will no doubt put a huge stress on the power grid if they are to have more than few trucks charging per city

The great thing about trucks is that they don't go into cities much.

The city is where the most electrical energy is used, hence it it very much more likely to be available there, than in rural or remote areas.

[Fungus]

The great thing about trucks is that they don't go into cities much.

The city is where the most electrical energy is used, hence it it very much more likely to be available there, than in rural or remote areas.

That's today, yes.

Tesla isn't stupid though. They're also busy building power farms in remote areas and investing in all sorts of other ways to generate/store electricity.

eg. Cities don't use anywhere near as much power at night, if there's a way to store the excess capacity (Tesla batteries) then it can be used during the day. You could also recharge the trucks at night when the drivers are sleeping. That's a whole load of extra "capacity" without any more generation infrastructure.

[Simon]

Distributed generation and storage will be the way forward, it is more efficient and cheaper than having to build large centralized systems and then the infrastructure to access them.

[Corporate666]

I am in the market to buy a new car right now.

I am a technology person and would like to buy a full electric vehicle, but as much as I like them, the technology is just not there yet.  They are a burden to own compared to a gas car.

They require you to think and plan and work around them, whereas a gas car does not.  I am actually not convinced that battery EV's are ever going to succeed until we have a revolutionary battery technology come along.  What we have now isn't it.  Even with supercharging, I don't want to sit for a half hour to charge when I can fill up with gas in 2-3 minutes. 

There is always a knee of the curve, a killer app, a price point, or a threshold that needs to be met before a technology really catches on.  VCR's could do time-shifting for years, but only when digital storage made it really easy did it take off.  And only when EV's are as convenient as ICE cars will they take off.

Until then, they will be bought by tech savvy early adopters willing to live with the (severe) shortcomings and by people who like getting $10k of their fellow taxpayers money for their luxury car.

[NiHaoMike]

I am in the market to buy a new car right now.

I am a technology person and would like to buy a full electric vehicle, but as much as I like them, the technology is just not there yet.  They are a burden to own compared to a gas car.

They require you to think and plan and work around them, whereas a gas car does not.  I am actually not convinced that battery EV's are ever going to succeed until we have a revolutionary battery technology come along.  What we have now isn't it.  Even with supercharging, I don't want to sit for a half hour to charge when I can fill up with gas in 2-3 minutes. 

I think most people find having to go to a gas station is a burden compared to simply charging at home. And hence why I think plug in hybrids would be the way to go for the near future. For that matter, I wonder how come the idea of an EV with a generator trailer to convert it into a plug in hybrid hasn't taken off.

[Simon]

I am in the market to buy a new car right now.

I am a technology person and would like to buy a full electric vehicle, but as much as I like them, the technology is just not there yet.  They are a burden to own compared to a gas car.

They require you to think and plan and work around them, whereas a gas car does not.  I am actually not convinced that battery EV's are ever going to succeed until we have a revolutionary battery technology come along.  What we have now isn't it.  Even with supercharging, I don't want to sit for a half hour to charge when I can fill up with gas in 2-3 minutes. 

There is always a knee of the curve, a killer app, a price point, or a threshold that needs to be met before a technology really catches on.  VCR's could do time-shifting for years, but only when digital storage made it really easy did it take off.  And only when EV's are as convenient as ICE cars will they take off.

Until then, they will be bought by tech savvy early adopters willing to live with the (severe) shortcomings and by people who like getting $10k of their fellow taxpayers money for their luxury car.

like most people you are not being imaginative and expect a like for like replacement. So where do you work? does your employer have roof space to put solar panels on so that you can charge your car while at work? there are cars capable of 200-250 miles. If my employer made at work car charging a thing I'd buy a second hand electric tomottow aqnd travel for 1/10 the cost I do now plus have juice to plug the car into the house and run the house for free..........

[Corporate666]

I am in the market to buy a new car right now.

I am a technology person and would like to buy a full electric vehicle, but as much as I like them, the technology is just not there yet.  They are a burden to own compared to a gas car.

They require you to think and plan and work around them, whereas a gas car does not.  I am actually not convinced that battery EV's are ever going to succeed until we have a revolutionary battery technology come along.  What we have now isn't it.  Even with supercharging, I don't want to sit for a half hour to charge when I can fill up with gas in 2-3 minutes. 

There is always a knee of the curve, a killer app, a price point, or a threshold that needs to be met before a technology really catches on.  VCR's could do time-shifting for years, but only when digital storage made it really easy did it take off.  And only when EV's are as convenient as ICE cars will they take off.

Until then, they will be bought by tech savvy early adopters willing to live with the (severe) shortcomings and by people who like getting $10k of their fellow taxpayers money for their luxury car.

like most people you are not being imaginative and expect a like for like replacement. So where do you work? does your employer have roof space to put solar panels on so that you can charge your car while at work? there are cars capable of 200-250 miles. If my employer made at work car charging a thing I'd buy a second hand electric tomottow aqnd travel for 1/10 the cost I do now plus have juice to plug the car into the house and run the house for free..........

Engineers often have a bad habit of not understanding human nature and sales and think that people just need to adapt themselves to the products they create rather than making products that work best for the consumer.  That's why they do things like use + and - buttons for the volume of a radio rather than a knob - the latter allowing for faster adjustment, more resolution, etc. 

That's what you are doing here.  The problem is not that I lack imagination.  The problem is the product.  I like the other aspects of an EV, but I don't want to deal with the long charging times.  Sure, in many cases it would not be an issue... but in some cases, it WOULD be an issue.  And it is an issue I do not care to deal with.  I also do not care to deal with planning my trips and my routes to make sure chargers are available to me (and hope space is available when I get there - especially for example if I reserve a hotel room based on that hotel having chargers for guests). 

I thought about getting a Tesla for my new car, but the technology just isn't there yet.  It is a fine car for a multi-car family when you have the option of taking the gasoline powered car when you need to drive a longer distance or go on a road trip, or for when the power went out or you forgot to plug it in or whatever.  But for a replacement for a combustion engine car?  The technology just isn't there yet. 

Which is why they aren't selling.  People just don't want to buy them.  They buy them only with huge price discounts.  That isn't really about furthering the technology - that's just keeping the manufacturers alive (and still losing grotesque quantites of money even with the subsidies, I might add).

[Simon]

So what is it you like about them? they seem to hold some advantage.

I am afraid that to a degree people have to adapt. I spent all of my working time compromising, everything is a compromise and that means everyone can't have everything they want. The general public will just have to change, charging has nothing to do with it for most people, they just want a combustion engine full stop and they can hardly tell you why. So if they are going to have to make such a seismic shift they can adapt to a few things too. I mean horses still exist or you very own shankssis pony (walking) if you don't like what the market and the best of current engineering has to offer. The general public has been spoilt with stuff over the years and just expect more of what they want regardless of what is feasible. As i keep trying to explain to my own father you can't go against the laws of physics.

[Corporate666]

I think most people find having to go to a gas station is a burden compared to simply charging at home. And hence why I think plug in hybrids would be the way to go for the near future. For that matter, I wonder how come the idea of an EV with a generator trailer to convert it into a plug in hybrid hasn't taken off.

I find stopping to get gas to be a pain in the ass.  I actually dislike going to shops and running errands more than most people I think... I do just about all my shopping online, and I tend to actually go into a shop once every two months, if that.   The idea of not having to stop to get gas is appealing to me.  However, having to plug my car in every time I stop would be a chore.  I have a few cars and generally my daily driver sits in the driveway.  I wouldn't want to have to open some box mounted on the wall and haul out a big cable and plug my car in each time I stop, especially in freezing winter weather or rain.  I park indoors at work, so it would be easier - but still a hassle compared to not having to do anything with my current ICE car.  The total time consumed plugging in the vehicle at the start and drop of my commute would be well in excess of the 3 minutes (estimated) I spend every 2 weeks getting gas.  Some sort of automatic charging solution would be appealing, but only solves part of the problem.

The other part of the issue is that I can't just refill the vehicle whenever I want.  I don't want to deal with having to think about how full it is.  That's something I don't have to think about now and I wouldn't like to take on that additional consideration for a future vehicle.  Engineers ignore this concern at their peril.  I think the Chevy Volt was a really neat solution.  I wish there was some sort of trunk-mountable "aux power unit" that was just a pre-engineered solution that let me put gasoline in there and it would connect to the vehicle's electrical system and burn gas to generate electricity.   It would be great for peace of mind or to bring along if I was going on a long trip or just for times when I worked a 16 hour day, forgot to plug the car in and got a call requiring me to visit a client site the next day unexpectedly.  In a pure EV, that would become a hassle.

[Corporate666]

So what is it you like about them? they seem to hold some advantage.

I am afraid that to a degree people have to adapt. I spent all of my working time compromising, everything is a compromise and that means everyone can't have everything they want. The general public will just have to change, charging has nothing to do with it for most people, they just want a combustion engine full stop and they can hardly tell you why. So if they are going to have to make such a seismic shift they can adapt to a few things too. I mean horses still exist or you very own shankssis pony (walking) if you don't like what the market and the best of current engineering has to offer. The general public has been spoilt with stuff over the years and just expect more of what they want regardless of what is feasible. As i keep trying to explain to my own father you can't go against the laws of physics.

I like that they are quiet - that is huge for me - I like my car to be a tranquil and relaxing place where I can do some thinking.  I don't listen to music or podcasts... I think.  I like the (expected) reduced service costs.  There's so much complexity in a combustion engine and so many fluids and mechanisms... I don't think current EV's really do the best job they could (which would be motors on each wheel) - so they are sort of a hack between an ideal solution and what works within our current framework.

I disagree that people have to adapt.   Capitalism doesn't work that way - people will always go with what works best.  There are tons of technologies that were tried numerous times and failed each time until some little tweak was made that hit some sweet spot and made it catch on like wild fire.  There are people who have a problem with EV's but they are the vocal minority and equal to the fanbois who will excuse Tesla for anything.  Most people don't really know much about the subject either way.  If they go to the dealer, they would probably be open to test driving and they would need to have an experience that's better than a gas car.  But one of their first questions would always be "what about when the batteries die"" - it's something we all have personal experience with on our mobile devices.  The answer of course is "how often do you run out of gas?".  Personally, I never have.  Neither have most, I think.  But then the next question becomes "Ok, so when I stop to charge this up - how long does it take?" and when the answer is hours - people get turned off.  Telling them they have to adapt and plan better so they always have enough battery power isn't the answer.  They will just not buy the cars in favor of combustion cars - which is what they are doing now.

[Fungus]

I don't want to sit for a half hour to charge when I can fill up with gas in 2-3 minutes. 

OTOH overnight charging at home will let you avoid an awful lot of trips to the gas station.   

I have a few cars.

You already solved your own problem. You could take an old-fashioned ICE car when you go on long trips or do something other than the daily commute where you think range might be a problem.

(although you might find you no longer want to - see below)

I wouldn't want to have to open some box mounted on the wall and haul out a big cable and plug my car in each time I stop

Try focusing on the positives instead of the negatives. Most people who own electric cars (especially Teslas) seem to like driving them so much that it really isn't a chore to plug them in when they get home. It's more like, "Thank you car, you've earned this!"

Ref: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s

[jonovid]

So what is it you like about them? they seem to hold some advantage.

I am afraid that to a degree people have to adapt. I spent all of my working time compromising, everything is a compromise and that means everyone can't have everything they want. The general public will just have to change, charging has nothing to do with it for most people, they just want a combustion engine full stop and they can hardly tell you why. So if they are going to have to make such a seismic shift they can adapt to a few things too. I mean horses still exist or you very own shankssis pony (walking) if you don't like what the market and the best of current engineering has to offer. The general public has been spoilt with stuff over the years and just expect more of what they want regardless of what is feasible. As i keep trying to explain to my own father you can't go against the laws of physics.

I like that they are quiet - that is huge for me - I like my car to be a tranquil and relaxing place where I can do some thinking.  I don't listen to music or podcasts... I think.  I like the (expected) reduced service costs.  There's so much complexity in a combustion engine and so many fluids and mechanisms... I don't think current EV's really do the best job they could (which would be motors on each wheel) - so they are sort of a hack between an ideal solution and what works within our current framework.

I disagree that people have to adapt.   Capitalism doesn't work that way - people will always go with what works best.  There are tons of technologies that were tried numerous times and failed each time until some little tweak was made that hit some sweet spot and made it catch on like wild fire.  There are people who have a problem with EV's but they are the vocal minority and equal to the fanbois who will excuse Tesla for anything.  Most people don't really know much about the subject either way.  If they go to the dealer, they would probably be open to test driving and they would need to have an experience that's better than a gas car.  But one of their first questions would always be "what about when the batteries die"" - it's something we all have personal experience with on our mobile devices.  The answer of course is "how often do you run out of gas?".  Personally, I never have.  Neither have most, I think.  But then the next question becomes "Ok, so when I stop to charge this up - how long does it take?" and when the answer is hours - people get turned off.  Telling them they have to adapt and plan better so they always have enough battery power isn't the answer.  They will just not buy the cars in favor of combustion cars - which is what they are doing now.

on the positive is that Tesla has made electric vehicles fast , cool & desirable.
on the negative Tesla's  vehicles are still expensive in comparison to the cheapest petrol vehicles with good styling.
so when the Chinese finally manufacture cool & desirable electric vehicle that is very basic, cheap & reliable. only then will be popular. diesel generator in a trailer is an upgrade. so is a bigger battery pack, electric motors on all wheels. Tesla is like apple computers, expensive! remember when windows computers needed lots of hardware upgrades just to play games or video.   a generator upgrad in/on the vehicle is better.

[Fungus]

Yeah, I've often wondered why they don't make some sort of range-extending trailer.

The only answer I can come up with is that it's not actually needed in practice. That range-anxiety is all in your imagination, you never really need to drive 500 miles without stopping for bathroom/coffee and that being able to plug in at home is way better than going out of your way to gas stations.

And that's without even considering the silence/power/reliability/lack of oil changes, etc.

[Simon]

once again those that claim electric would be great if only....... and then come up with a load of excuses that amount to: because it does not do what a gas car does........ and does bnot do better than gas in my opinion that is based on the fact that i prefer a combustion engine and i can't tell you why.

I like the idea of being able to travel for 2 pence/miles instead of 18 pence /mile, would i go to the effort to plug in every night for that, hell yes. Range extenders are available on cars so ultimately being caught short and long trips is not a problem. A small generator with a limited tank will go a long way because electric is ultimately much more efficient. I sit here with a headache having just spent the day across the road on a charity stall all day from a bloody diesel generator that supplied me with toxic air all day, hell yes I'd like to see the back of that. The advantages of electric are many over combustion but many of the advantages are not immediate but to the benefit of all like cleaner air. But the average consumer is a selfish and lazy little shit that expects to gain personally from adopting what simply is sensible progressive technology. If you don't like it don't use it, just bare in mind one day you will be walking instead of driving.

[Simon]

I think most people find having to go to a gas station is a burden compared to simply charging at home. And hence why I think plug in hybrids would be the way to go for the near future. For that matter, I wonder how come the idea of an EV with a generator trailer to convert it into a plug in hybrid hasn't taken off.

I find stopping to get gas to be a pain in the ass.  I actually dislike going to shops and running errands more than most people I think... I do just about all my shopping online, and I tend to actually go into a shop once every two months, if that.   The idea of not having to stop to get gas is appealing to me.  However, having to plug my car in every time I stop would be a chore.  I have a few cars and generally my daily driver sits in the driveway.  I wouldn't want to have to open some box mounted on the wall and haul out a big cable and plug my car in each time I stop, especially in freezing winter weather or rain.  I park indoors at work, so it would be easier - but still a hassle compared to not having to do anything with my current ICE car.  The total time consumed plugging in the vehicle at the start and drop of my commute would be well in excess of the 3 minutes (estimated) I spend every 2 weeks getting gas.  Some sort of automatic charging solution would be appealing, but only solves part of the problem.

The other part of the issue is that I can't just refill the vehicle whenever I want.  I don't want to deal with having to think about how full it is.  That's something I don't have to think about now and I wouldn't like to take on that additional consideration for a future vehicle.  Engineers ignore this concern at their peril.  I think the Chevy Volt was a really neat solution.  I wish there was some sort of trunk-mountable "aux power unit" that was just a pre-engineered solution that let me put gasoline in there and it would connect to the vehicle's electrical system and burn gas to generate electricity.   It would be great for peace of mind or to bring along if I was going on a long trip or just for times when I worked a 16 hour day, forgot to plug the car in and got a call requiring me to visit a client site the next day unexpectedly.  In a pure EV, that would become a hassle.

You could always hire people to "look" after you if you can't be bothered to do the basic things. I mean if you want to drive a vehicle you need to fuel it. I bet you won't complain about the near 1/10 of the cost to run it but you complain about having to plug in. I bet walking would be tedious too ?

[Someone]

I like the idea of being able to travel for 2 pence/miles instead of 18 pence /mile, would i go to the effort to plug in every night for that, hell yes.

More corner case numbers from the world of distraction, when using market rates and a realistic comparison vehicle a Tesla is not so cheap to run:

The red line is the cost comparison for a Mercedes Benz C 220 CDI compared to a typical Tesla. We can come forward in time and check similar data again for the UK (just in case energy prices changed a lot)
http://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/driving-costs/fuel-prices  120p per l for diesel or petrol
https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/tariffs-per-unit-kwh#current-unit-rates 13p per kWh
and for todays vehicle lets go with an Audi A5
http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx
Petrol 6.4 l/100km and Diesel 4.2 l/100km
Tesla 20kWh/100km

Multiplying those out:
Petrol: 768p/100km
Diesel:504p/100km
Electric: 250p/100km

Your government comes up with almost identical numbers on their own comparison tool:
http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx
They show a Telsas energy costs for 12,000 miles per year costing roughly half as much as the Diesel comparison and 1/3rd as much as the Petrol.
2/18 <<< 6/18 < 9/18
Or do you plan on taking free energy from the super chargers, or charging on some other discount source that you don't mention?

[Simon]

my understanding is that electric cars of small size use 200Wh/mile and medium ones use 300Wh/mile. Here in the UK overnight electricity prices are £0.08/KWh so that is £0.02 per mile. I pay £1.25 for 1 litre of petrol or £5.675 per gallon (4.54 litres). My car does 43mpg, so that is £0.132 per mile. I also have to add redex to my fuel as without it on the short journeys i do engine performance deteriorates badly (an electric on the other hand would have full torque right off the bat no matter what my driving type is).

So on fuel alone my costs are nearly 7 times higher and i intentionally try to avoid rush hours because sitting in traffic with a combustion engine costs money. sitting in traffic with an electric car costs virtually nothing and crawling in traffic uses 100W/mile in an BMW i3.

[Simon]

As i hinted earlier if we were doing this whole "benefit to society" thing my employer could install solar panels on their extensive factory roof and not only could they power the factory and our office off it they could charge many electric cars. Some of those are driven but a few miles home. I for example travel 6.5 miles to work. So that is 3.25 KWh, now if i was being recharged by 10KWh/day I could quite easily get home and plug my car into the house and have nearly 7KWh available to power my home. If I am only at home in the evening i use less than 5KWh of electricity.......

[tszaboo]

I like the idea of being able to travel for 2 pence/miles instead of 18 pence /mile, would i go to the effort to plug in every night for that, hell yes.

More corner case numbers from the world of distraction, when using market rates and a realistic comparison vehicle a Tesla is not so cheap to run:

The red line is the cost comparison for a Mercedes Benz C 220 CDI compared to a typical Tesla. We can come forward in time and check similar data again for the UK (just in case energy prices changed a lot)
http://www.theaa.com/driving-advice/driving-costs/fuel-prices  120p per l for diesel or petrol
https://www.ukpower.co.uk/home_energy/tariffs-per-unit-kwh#current-unit-rates 13p per kWh
and for todays vehicle lets go with an Audi A5
http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx
Petrol 6.4 l/100km and Diesel 4.2 l/100km
Tesla 20kWh/100km

Multiplying those out:
Petrol: 768p/100km
Diesel:504p/100km
Electric: 250p/100km

Your government comes up with almost identical numbers on their own comparison tool:
http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-new-or-used-cars.aspx
They show a Telsas energy costs for 12,000 miles per year costing roughly half as much as the Diesel comparison and 1/3rd as much as the Petrol.
2/18 <<< 6/18 < 9/18
Or do you plan on taking free energy from the super chargers, or charging on some other discount source that you don't mention?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_incentives_for_plug-in_electric_vehicles#United_Kingdom
Though I'm not an UK expert, I'm sure there are other benefits. In Hungary, it is worth to have an electric, because you dont pay for the parking, charging is free at any spot, tax is reduced, you will be able to use the bus lane and so on.

[Simon]

screw the incentives electric is more efficient AND  I can make my own........

[phil from seattle]

"not so cheap to run" but then fully admit that its 1/2 to 1/3 the cost.   

The point about other reasons to own an EV is spot on. 

• An EV has significantly better acceleration than an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicle. While it's easy to disparage that as unnecessary, the increased acceleration makes the car more responsive.
• It's a quieter ride.
• Regeneration significantly increases the efficiency of EVs.
• With home charging, you start each day with full range. The effort to do that is about 15 seconds plugging and unplugging.
• EVs are significantly less complex than an ICE. This should yield two benefits: lower cost manufacturing and higher reliability.  Because battery cost is dominant, the first benefit isn't obvious. The second point results in lower maintenance costs.
• No oil changes, no tune ups, no radiator antifreeze. Regen braking means brakes last a lot longer. That should be factored into per mile/km costs. All sorts of systems that simply don't exist (fuel, exhaust, radiator, oil, emission controls,...) and thus don't need repair or maintenance. 
• And best of all, you don't have to ever go to a gas station again.

So, yeah, I own an EV - Model S. If it got wrecked tomorrow, I'd get another one.

[kaz911]

my understanding is that electric cars of small size use 200Wh/mile and medium ones use 300Wh/mile. Here in the UK overnight electricity prices are £0.08/KWh so that is £0.02 per mile. I pay £1.25 for 1 litre of petrol or £5.675 per gallon (4.54 litres). My car does 43mpg, so that is £0.132 per mile. I also have to add redex to my fuel as without it on the short journeys i do engine performance deteriorates badly (an electric on the other hand would have full torque right off the bat no matter what my driving type is).

So on fuel alone my costs are nearly 7 times higher and i intentionally try to avoid rush hours because sitting in traffic with a combustion engine costs money. sitting in traffic with an electric car costs virtually nothing and crawling in traffic uses 100W/mile in an BMW i3.

So when the Government feels the pinch of Electric cars indirect subsidies like VAT at 5% for electricity vs VAT 20% on Fuel and the duties and taxes on fuels are morphed towards electricity as well - what do you think will happen

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/treasury-tax-electric-cars-vat-fuel-duty

I could “earn” a bunch of monies via Subsidies to exchange my Natural Gas boilers with Heat Pumps and get a heck of a lot of Goverment subsidies. But payback is so dependent on electricity costs. And demand and supply dictates prices. As Electricity demand is increasing - price will increase over time. But natural Gas prices are dropping as natural gas demand is decreasing.

Just this year vs last year my electricity has gone from 0.09/kWh to 0.1115/kWh but my Natural Gas has gone from 0.0321/kWh to 0.0266/kWh (excl. 5% vat) - that is of course excluding standing charge.

So now I’m thinking of putting in some Natural Gas to Electricity converters - as it seems I can make my own electricity for about 0.04 / kWh incl service fees/maintenance etc. On top of that I get a generous donation from the government for every kWh I produce - much better than solar (about 0.1295 / kWh at this moment) + on top of that I get about 0.05 / kWh I export.... I feel it is a bit like stealing from the public - but you have to follow the rules.

And it is not green - but it is greener than buying electricity delivered via the current net.

I’m still in the research phase on the converter but I’ll keep you all updated.

[Lord of nothing]

Electric vs. Fossil Fuel also depend on the National Tax.
But again 98% of all Country in the World use the Metrical System can we use it here to?
Thanks! 

[Rick Law]

I am in the market to buy a new car right now.
...

This year was a bad hurricane year.  Be on the look out for flood-cars.  While there are certain laws/regulations, protection is not 100%.   This may not be EE, but then most likely wet/moist electronics would be a significant problem for the flood-cars.

Consumers Report and other major publications all of good articles on the issues how these dry-up clean-up lemons do get into the market and how to spot them.

[Lord of nothing]

Is there no Warranty? 

[Rick Law]

Is there no Warranty? 

I assume that is in reference to flood-cars.

Yeah, most if not all new cars sold in the USA has Warranty -- but but do you really want to visit the repair shop so often?

Also, as the magazine articles pointed out, some damages could show up years later after warranty expired.  One of the flood-car articles specifically mentioned moist electronics being a problem as some of these damages takes a while for corrosion to get bad enough to affect it.  Wet metal may also take a while to show a problem.  Your hood (or ball joints or whatever parts) may rust away in year 4 off whereas other exact same model cars have no rust issue at those spots.

[Corporate666]

OTOH overnight charging at home will let you avoid an awful lot of trips to the gas station.   

It's really not though.  I put gas in my car just about every 2 weeks... so we're talking 12 fill-ups per year, at about maybe 3 minutes each.  It's not something I enjoy doing, but it's not something that registers much at all on my "pain in the ass, wish I didn't have to do it" meter.  Plugging a car in twice daily would be more of a pain in the ass, frankly.

You already solved your own problem. You could take an old-fashioned ICE car when you go on long trips or do something other than the daily commute where you think range might be a problem.

But in this case I am seeking to replace my daily driver.  My other vehicles most definitely aren't daily drivers.

Try focusing on the positives instead of the negatives. Most people who own electric cars (especially Teslas) seem to like driving them so much that it really isn't a chore to plug them in when they get home. It's more like, "Thank you car, you've earned this!"

I think this goes back to what I said previously about engineers wanting the customer to adapt to the product rather than making the product suit the customer.  I know EV's have benefits and I would like those benefits, but not at the cost of the charging/range issue.  I think we can collectively chastise consumers for not being clued in enough to understand what's good for them, or we can assume people aren't stupid and aren't buying EV's because they don't fit the bill.  I think the latter is clearly true - that problem needs to be addressed for them to take off and become successful.

It may happen through significantly longer range and greatly reduced charge time - if my EV could charge in 20 minutes and had a range of 1,000 miles... it would be a different situation.

[Corporate666]

You could always hire people to "look" after you if you can't be bothered to do the basic things. I mean if you want to drive a vehicle you need to fuel it. I bet you won't complain about the near 1/10 of the cost to run it but you complain about having to plug in. I bet walking would be tedious too ?

Grow up.

The simple fact is that EV's aren't selling.  Even with all the subsidies and handouts, they don't sell.  You can stubbornly refuse to accept the reality that is staring you in the face and believe that everyone just needs to be forced to bend to your viewpoint, or you can take a look at how markets really work and understand that EV's will sell when they make sense for consumers.  Right now, they do not.

People tell you what the problem is and you keep saying "no, that's not the problem"

[Corporate666]

"not so cheap to run" but then fully admit that its 1/2 to 1/3 the cost.   

The point about other reasons to own an EV is spot on. 

• An EV has significantly better acceleration than an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Vehicle. While it's easy to disparage that as unnecessary, the increased acceleration makes the car more responsive.
• It's a quieter ride.
• Regeneration significantly increases the efficiency of EVs.
• With home charging, you start each day with full range. The effort to do that is about 15 seconds plugging and unplugging.
• EVs are significantly less complex than an ICE. This should yield two benefits: lower cost manufacturing and higher reliability.  Because battery cost is dominant, the first benefit isn't obvious. The second point results in lower maintenance costs.
• No oil changes, no tune ups, no radiator antifreeze. Regen braking means brakes last a lot longer. That should be factored into per mile/km costs. All sorts of systems that simply don't exist (fuel, exhaust, radiator, oil, emission controls,...) and thus don't need repair or maintenance. 
• And best of all, you don't have to ever go to a gas station again.

So, yeah, I own an EV - Model S. If it got wrecked tomorrow, I'd get another one.

These are all the positive sides of owning an EV.  There are negatives too.

A lot of folks give the Tesla S lots of shit because it's an expensive car.  But there have been plenty of lower priced EV's on the market for years and the fact is - they just don't sell.  The Volt, the Leaf, the Bolt, and numerous others.    If you look back ~7 years ago or so, GM was predicting something like 200,000 volts sold in the USA per year within 2-3 years.  I am not sure if they ever hit that cumulatively since the car went into production.

EV's just are not selling.  It's not about price, because the deals have been fantastic - both from government money and car manufacturers losing thousands on each one sold.  It's not that the cars are junk - customer satisfaction has been high from what I have seen on most of these cars.

The problem is that most people just don't want them.  I think we are a technology revolution away from these vehicles actually selling, cuz right now they ain't.

[Corporate666]

This year was a bad hurricane year.  Be on the look out for flood-cars.  While there are certain laws/regulations, protection is not 100%.   This may not be EE, but then most likely wet/moist electronics would be a significant problem for the flood-cars.

Consumers Report and other major publications all of good articles on the issues how these dry-up clean-up lemons do get into the market and how to spot them.

I am looking to buy new off the dealer lot... my understanding is that state (maybe federal?) law dictates that any damage above $200 or so must be disclosed to the buyer prior to the sale.

But your point is well taken and sound advice for anyone looking to buy used and being tempted by low prices on late model low mileage cars.

[Someone]

A lot of folks give the Tesla S lots of shit because it's an expensive car.  But there have been plenty of lower priced EV's on the market for years and the fact is - they just don't sell.

Mysteriously all the hybrid and electric cars have been priced so that they will cost approximately the same over their life as the equivalent petrol or diesel vehicle, surprise surprise there is little incentive to go with the high upfront cost and uncertainty about lifespan and resale value (warranted or not) the same thing happened with diesel cars in Australia for a long time with their several thousand dollars of premium cost.

Should be fun on the second hand market in a few years time, you already have people heavily modifying Toyota Prius platforms since they're so cheap to obtain.

[mtdoc]

Actually EV sales growth has been impressive, especially given the fact that the market didn’t even exist a few years ago and that gasoline prices have been extremely low.

When I bought my Volt 3 years ago, I did not even consider the benefit of not having to go to the gas station regularly. I’d been doing it for almost 40 years and hadn’t realized what a PITA it was. That, and oil changes.  Now, I’m finding it to be one of the biggest perks of EV ownership. We just got my wife a Chrysler Pacifica PHEV in part because she wants to enjoy the same perks.

No need to tow a trailer with a generator, it’s built in.  IMHO these plug in “serial hybrids” are the perfect solution at this point in time when a full fledged charging infrastructure or battery swap soltion is not yet in place. It’s all electric most days but no range anxiety if i want to take a longer trip.  3 years into it and my Volt’s average MPG is > 200 despite regular long drives to Seattle.

[Simon]

You could always hire people to "look" after you if you can't be bothered to do the basic things. I mean if you want to drive a vehicle you need to fuel it. I bet you won't complain about the near 1/10 of the cost to run it but you complain about having to plug in. I bet walking would be tedious too ?

Grow up.

The simple fact is that EV's aren't selling.  Even with all the subsidies and handouts, they don't sell.  You can stubbornly refuse to accept the reality that is staring you in the face and believe that everyone just needs to be forced to bend to your viewpoint, or you can take a look at how markets really work and understand that EV's will sell when they make sense for consumers.  Right now, they do not.

People tell you what the problem is and you keep saying "no, that's not the problem"

Well I'm one consumer happy to have one! I like more efficient and cheaper travel despite some people not wanting to "bend" to reality. Fact is all you are saying is that you are lazy, I'm sorry but whatever you are offered you stubbornly refuse to accept it. You want the EV benefits and the ICE benefits together, this is the point at which I usually have to tell my boss to stop being silly......

[tszaboo]

The problem is that most people just don't want them.  I think we are a technology revolution away from these vehicles actually selling, cuz right now they ain't.

You are in write only mode, repeating the same thing over and over again.
The fact, that around you there aren't many electric cars, and everyone is bitching, doesnt mean that EVs dont sell. In norway, every 3rd car is PHEV or EV. VW is spending some 82 Billion on electric cars. That is 4x Telsa all asset. Every Volvo will be electric or hybirid in two years. They just wont have other type of engine. And several countries ban sales of ICE cars completely.
You are like the guy, sitting on a horseback, shouting that cars are useless, and horses are the future.

[Simon]

So when the Government feels the pinch of Electric cars indirect subsidies like VAT at 5% for electricity vs VAT 20% on Fuel and the duties and taxes on fuels are morphed towards electricity as well - what do you think will happen

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/treasury-tax-electric-cars-vat-fuel-duty

I could “earn” a bunch of monies via Subsidies to exchange my Natural Gas boilers with Heat Pumps and get a heck of a lot of Goverment subsidies. But payback is so dependent on electricity costs. And demand and supply dictates prices. As Electricity demand is increasing - price will increase over time. But natural Gas prices are dropping as natural gas demand is decreasing.

Just this year vs last year my electricity has gone from 0.09/kWh to 0.1115/kWh but my Natural Gas has gone from 0.0321/kWh to 0.0266/kWh (excl. 5% vat) - that is of course excluding standing charge.

So now I’m thinking of putting in some Natural Gas to Electricity converters - as it seems I can make my own electricity for about 0.04 / kWh incl service fees/maintenance etc. On top of that I get a generous donation from the government for every kWh I produce - much better than solar (about 0.1295 / kWh at this moment) + on top of that I get about 0.05 / kWh I export.... I feel it is a bit like stealing from the public - but you have to follow the rules.

And it is not green - but it is greener than buying electricity delivered via the current net.

I’m still in the research phase on the converter but I’ll keep you all updated.

So you deny petrol increases in price too?, and that is out of the governments control, it's down to the international stage of self obsessed nations we buy the stuff from and the fact that it's value fuels wars because there are few locations where oil is located. Electricity on the other hand can be made in a localized and distributed way so there is no power struggle over it or monopolization of the market. I have but 1.5KW worth of panels and anually make 1/3 of my own supply, if I went nuts I could make enough for me and my driving. As things stand in the UK due to fierce campaigning fuel duty rises are continually scrapped, if the government had it's way your petrol would already be much more expensive, 10% extra at least.

Of course eventually electricity or the taxes on it will rise. The price maybe not because of how flexibly it can be produced with the new wonderful nuclear reactor yet to be built already out priced with todays alternatives. If they put VAT up I would not even be too bothered, ok so it rises to 20% like everything else, that would be an increase of 12.5%, it's not like petrol does not rise as well. At the end of the day when you buy petrol all you are doing is paying tax to the government. Don't like it? generate your own electricity.

[kaz911]

So when the Government feels the pinch of Electric cars indirect subsidies like VAT at 5% for electricity vs VAT 20% on Fuel and the duties and taxes on fuels are morphed towards electricity as well - what do you think will happen

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/26/treasury-tax-electric-cars-vat-fuel-duty

I could “earn” a bunch of monies via Subsidies to exchange my Natural Gas boilers with Heat Pumps and get a heck of a lot of Goverment subsidies. But payback is so dependent on electricity costs. And demand and supply dictates prices. As Electricity demand is increasing - price will increase over time. But natural Gas prices are dropping as natural gas demand is decreasing.

Just this year vs last year my electricity has gone from 0.09/kWh to 0.1115/kWh but my Natural Gas has gone from 0.0321/kWh to 0.0266/kWh (excl. 5% vat) - that is of course excluding standing charge.

So now I’m thinking of putting in some Natural Gas to Electricity converters - as it seems I can make my own electricity for about 0.04 / kWh incl service fees/maintenance etc. On top of that I get a generous donation from the government for every kWh I produce - much better than solar (about 0.1295 / kWh at this moment) + on top of that I get about 0.05 / kWh I export.... I feel it is a bit like stealing from the public - but you have to follow the rules.

And it is not green - but it is greener than buying electricity delivered via the current net.

I’m still in the research phase on the converter but I’ll keep you all updated.

So you deny petrol increases in price too?, and that is out of the governments control, it's down to the international stage of self obsessed nations we buy the stuff from and the fact that it's value fuels wars because there are few locations where oil is located. Electricity on the other hand can be made in a localized and distributed way so there is no power struggle over it or monopolization of the market. I have but 1.5KW worth of panels and anually make 1/3 of my own supply, if I went nuts I could make enough for me and my driving. As things stand in the UK due to fierce campaigning fuel duty rises are continually scrapped, if the government had it's way your petrol would already be much more expensive, 10% extra at least.

Of course eventually electricity or the taxes on it will rise. The price maybe not because of how flexibly it can be produced with the new wonderful nuclear reactor yet to be built already out priced with todays alternatives. If they put VAT up I would not even be too bothered, ok so it rises to 20% like everything else, that would be an increase of 12.5%, it's not like petrol does not rise as well. At the end of the day when you buy petrol all you are doing is paying tax to the government. Don't like it? generate your own electricity.

Simon - I do not deny anything - I have not compared Electric to Petrol prices or any relation. I'm just saying that you at some point will loose the BENEFITS given to you from the Government right now. Right now EV miles are subsidised due to low VAT rate on Electricity.

I'm not against Tes(t)la's or EV's or Hybrid. I would love one. But I know how Governments operate. Now London hybrid drivers will start getting less benefit. Once we have MORE EV's the benefits will stop as the tax monies have to come from somewhere.

But I'm just saying - please stay realistic. Once the Government thinks you get too much benefit - they remove it.  EV's have great benefits now in some economies. But look at Denmark that had very favourable taxes for EV's. The Government then changed the rules - and now just about ZERO Tesla sales vs the ? 1800-2000 / year before.

And I do not deny that petrol prices rise and fall. Petrol right now is actually expensive - but not due to Oil prices but due to Government taxes and greed (in all of Europe). Petrol now is actually about the same price as when Oil was at $140/barrel. In 2009 where oil was around where it is now - Petrol was below £0.9 a litre. Now it is about .. 1.10-1.20.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jan/07/oil-v-petrol-how-the-prices-compare   <-- old article but still valid

in the USA there is a better correlation between Oil price and Petrol price:
http://www.macrotrends.net/2501/crude-oil-vs-gasoline-prices-chart

But in Europe we get screwed on taxes and greed etc.

So look in the crystal ball - and look into the future. What do you think will happen? If demand for electricity increase - what will happen with the price? If we have to put in new/upgraded infrastructure and build new power-plants - what will happen? The cost will be passed onto the consumer somehow - and consumption charges are the fastest way. So in time EV miles will become more expensive.

My personal goal for my property is to make myself independent of external suppliers. I do not have space for a lot of Solar so I could fit maybe 1.5-2.5 kW panels. Electric powered heat pumps (Ground Source or Air-Air/Air-Water) could bring me some windfall now - but not in the future when Electricity prices goes up - IF Natural Gas prices stay down.

So what it your ROI when Electricity costs doubles?... You will get "more" benefit from your solar panels.

And btw. Teslas are supposed to be "easier to maintain" but when I asked for annual maintenance cost at the Tesla garage - they quoted me prices similar to a BMW x6... Greed...

[Simon]

Yes I'm sure electricity could rise in price, but as things stand using electricity as "fuel" is 1/7 the price, there is a lot to go before electric equals petrol (OK the battery costs money). I don't know how the government will cope, perhaps they could close the tax loopholes then I would not have to be taxed so that I can drive to work to earn a wage to pay taxes on...... And with the spread of cheap solar panels and other ways to make electricity and the ability to store it the government won't have the ultimate monopoly on electricity so perhaps they should just move elsewhere with taxes. Amazingly it is not the technology or cost of the technology that is the barrier, but the fear of what the government will do, some sort of crowd panic. My employer could put solar panels on their roof and compete with the electricity companies for my custom in charging during the day as it is made.

[Simon]

Fact is we are either debating how the government should raise revenue or whether or not EV's are a viable technology. Perhaps if everyone complained more loudly and voted with their wallets more tax loopholes would close and we could start to live in a society that is a bit fairer where you don't have to fear the cost of buying the type of car you want that is better for your health and that of everyone else because apple refuse to pay tax in your country.....

[Fungus]

Your government comes up with almost identical numbers on their own comparison tool:

They show a Telsas energy costs for 12,000 miles per year costing roughly half as much as the Diesel comparison and 1/3rd as much as the Petrol.
2/18 <<< 6/18 < 9/18

Is that the same government that made the diesel/petrol really expensive by taxing it? 

[3roomlab]

And btw. Teslas are supposed to be "easier to maintain" but when I asked for annual maintenance cost at the Tesla garage - they quoted me prices similar to a BMW x6... Greed...

how much were you quoted in UK?

i think i heard annual 4-year fee to service is US$900 (in USA), but many drivers skip this to once every 2 years (so US$900 for 8 years?), because many have deemed there is "nothing" to service.

[Fungus]

A lot of folks give the Tesla S lots of shit because it's an expensive car.  But there have been plenty of lower priced EV's on the market for years and the fact is - they just don't sell.  The Volt, the Leaf, the Bolt, and numerous others. 

Those cars are cheaper than a Tesla, yes, but they all have cheaper gasoline equivalents. eg. You can buy a Nissan Micra for far less than a Nissan Leaf.

[Fungus]

Mysteriously all the hybrid and electric cars have been priced so that they will cost approximately the same over their life as the equivalent petrol or diesel vehicle

Yeah, weird, that.

It's like diesel cars costing about the same as petrol cars over the life of the car despite having a simpler engine and lower fuel costs. Coincidence...?

Still, Tesla will break them eventually. So far he's been aiming at the rich people so he can get some infrastructure and battery factories built.

This time he's aimed a bit lower and has half a million pre-orders. Net time around, who knows?

Eventually the old dinosaurs will be shown up for what they are.

[Simon]

The only increase in costs will be artificial ones, taxes and "garages" that will see their requirement drop. Sorry folks, move on find something else to make your money from. The electric car will come.

[Lord of nothing]

The Main problem with Electric Cars is how to power them Up when you life in an Apartment Complex without an Parking Lot (aka Parking on the Side walk).

[Simon]

The Main problem with Electric Cars is how to power them Up when you life in an Apartment Complex without an Parking Lot (aka Parking on the Side walk).

I have the same problem. I own a house without a driveway. now if the local council could see sense they could let me and my neighbors flatten our gardens to create a place where 4 houses can have 6 cars. But because that involves a "public footpath" that accesses me and my neighbor they won't despite it's to access our land and we want it. Indeed a lot needs to change

[kaz911]

And btw. Teslas are supposed to be "easier to maintain" but when I asked for annual maintenance cost at the Tesla garage - they quoted me prices similar to a BMW x6... Greed...

how much were you quoted in UK?

i think i heard annual 4-year fee to service is US$900 (in USA), but many drivers skip this to once every 2 years (so US$900 for 8 years?), because many have deemed there is "nothing" to service.

https://www.tesla.com/en_GB/support/maintenance-plans

Tesla UK service plan cheapest model S - between £450 and £825 / year or 12500 miles (which ever comes first) - 4 year total plan £2250,-

Porsche Panamera - £460 for minor (30.000km/18000 miles or every 2 years) - or £525 for major (60.000km or every 4 years)

So Porsche is a LOT cheaper / mile for service than Tesla.... Just about 1/2 price.

EDIT: Both charges extras for consumables. Spark plugs are consumables and will add to the cost, but not enough to overtake Tesla in price.

[bd139]

I know someone who owns a Porsche Cayenne and it's done more miles on a flatbed than the road...

Also you don't know expensive service until you've owned a Range Rover! I haven't myself but I regularly see people with £2k bills here and there.

[MT]

The problem is that most people just don't want them.  I think we are a technology revolution away from these vehicles actually selling, cuz right now they ain't.

In norway, every 3rd car is PHEV or EV. VW is spending some 82 Billion on electric cars. That is 4x Telsa all asset. Every Volvo will be electric or hybirid in two years. They just wont have other type of engine. And several countries ban sales of ICE cars completely.

The reason they sell in Norway is due to all kind of tax reduction-governmental subsidizing.

Owning a car in Norway is ridiculous expensive compared to many other European countries.
Giving Tesla owners privileges is a political statement to a certain class of citizens. In Norway regular people are asking why government are subsidizing Musk and building up his fortune by taxpayers money ! Want tensions in the fabric of a nation? please just continue.

For example if you own a Tesla etc you are entitled to the following  freedoms below. For the rest of us its tied with a hefty penalty.

1:General electric viecle tax reductions.
2:Free parking.
3:Free ride in buss and taxi only lanes.
4:Free ferry rides.
5:Free recharge at community recharge stations.
6:Free passage of road tolls.
7:Free other things i cant recall right now.
8:Freedomness from taxes when you lease a electric car.

Example in 2014 a Tesla S (defined as Luxury car) was 80000eu then 50000eu is subsidized by Norwegian
government the electrons in the recharge stations is bought from Swedish hydro stations.

Faast forward to 2017:
Electric car sales stagnated due to Norwegian gov want to implement a tax on "fume free cars" the so called
"Tesla tax"! Its a one time pay tax of 7000eu per car, the Norwegian electric car association is protesting.

So what the Norwegian government is doing in reality is taking money form those who cant afford to buy Telsa
cars and giving it to the rich who can afford to buy Tesla cars , that's why Musk is crook, besides his crookedly
PayPal days!


 

[Lord of nothing]

How about other Electric Cars? Is the benefit for all or just for Tesla?

[SeanB]

I know someone who owns a Porsche Cayenne and it's done more miles on a flatbed than the road...

Also you don't know expensive service until you've owned a Range Rover! I haven't myself but I regularly see people with £2k bills here and there.

I was mistaken as an employee at the Range Rover dealership, I dropped off one there so often that security, and half the staff, thought I actually worked there. I did not drive into the line like the rest, just went around and up to the parking bay they left open for the vehicle, dropped off the keys and left.  We called it the weekend car, because it lived in the dealership most weeks. 3 windshields in 3 weeks, with a 2 week wait for Solihull to airfreight out the crate of windshields, the sealants and installation kit as well, all on warranty. then to add insult to injury they did not do the radiator hose recall, and it blew going up a hill.

[bd139]

I know someone who owns a Porsche Cayenne and it's done more miles on a flatbed than the road...

Also you don't know expensive service until you've owned a Range Rover! I haven't myself but I regularly see people with £2k bills here and there.

I was mistaken as an employee at the Range Rover dealership, I dropped off one there so often that security, and half the staff, thought I actually worked there. I did not drive into the line like the rest, just went around and up to the parking bay they left open for the vehicle, dropped off the keys and left.  We called it the weekend car, because it lived in the dealership most weeks. 3 windshields in 3 weeks, with a 2 week wait for Solihull to airfreight out the crate of windshields, the sealants and installation kit as well, all on warranty. then to add insult to injury they did not do the radiator hose recall, and it blew going up a hill.

Exactly that. My old boss had one. Top spec brand new. Radiator hose went as well. Also it didn't lock half the time which is a pretty big feature. And within 50 miles of driving out of the show room, the water pump actually sheared off. He owns a Tesla Model S as of about 2 years ago. Never heard a complaint about it.

I myself drove a Defender for many years and that was the least reliable car I've ever driven. On the positive note you could usually drive it when whatever had broken was broken. Hole in turbo? Still drivable even though it sounded like arse.

[Simon]

Well I say it again. The problems are not necessarily with the technology but it's perception and politics. To be honest the greatest part of travel is to and from work, why are we taxed for being able to pay tax?

[Lord of nothing]

The problems are not necessarily with the technology

It is how to recharge on the Sidewalk?
The same when you Park on an Company Parking lot who should pay the Bill for the Power when you recharge it there?
People got fired for recharching there Mobile Phone at Work.

[phil from seattle]

The apartment charging issue is probably the single biggest stumbling block to wide spread adoption of EVs. There needs to be regulatory changes so that new housing has charging spots. Some cities in the US are making progress on that but it's still in the early days. Tesla has made a change in how SuperChargers can be accessed - above a certain amount of usage you pay. And, they are now putting a lot of SCs in urban areas. That's still a bit of a band-aid.

And, as other have pointed out, the "nobody wants EVs" is a completely false, wishful narrative. Something like 400K people plunked down $5000 USD for a spot in line for the Tesla Model 3. 

[tszaboo]

The problem is that most people just don't want them.  I think we are a technology revolution away from these vehicles actually selling, cuz right now they ain't.

In norway, every 3rd car is PHEV or EV. VW is spending some 82 Billion on electric cars. That is 4x Telsa all asset. Every Volvo will be electric or hybirid in two years. They just wont have other type of engine. And several countries ban sales of ICE cars completely.

The reason they sell in Norway is due to all kind of tax reduction-governmental subsidizing.

Owning a car in Norway is ridiculous expensive compared to many other European countries.
Giving Tesla owners privileges is a political statement to a certain class of citizens. In Norway regular people are asking why government are subsidizing Musk and building up his fortune by taxpayers money ! Want tensions in the fabric of a nation? please just continue.

I've actually looked this up.
Your incentives are basically:
Not paying tax, not paying fees.

This is like complaining, that EV drivers are not getting kicked in the back, like other drivers. I actually have no problem with this. Taxes were reduced. Taxes, that are for the working people. How is this a bad thing?

[Rick Law]

The Main problem with Electric Cars is how to power them Up when you life in an Apartment Complex without an Parking Lot (aka Parking on the Side walk).

Add to that, often, you have to switch which side of the sidewalk you can park on depending on day-of-week.

Even in most single-family housing developments, it is a problem.  Most such developments are single width driveways.  Multi-car garages or wide driveways are typically way beyond the means of many if not most.

For most families, if husband & wife both have EV's, one has to charge every other night.  If they have a college age kid with another EV, that family need cars with a three-day range.

Since most would be charging at night, they would be drawing mostly from our coal/oil/gas power plant - which means our local electrical grid would be stressed to meet such demand too.  Most developers would not leave a lot of extras so as to minimize cost.  I don't know this (what follows) for sure but based on human nature -  If that development has 100 house with average 200A fuse box, I would bet the cable going into that development would be sized just for just that with very little extra.

There is a business opportunity here - small gas powered charger that you can tow along for long trips, or push across the other side of the sidewalk to charge the other car.

[mtdoc]

These sorts of high density housing charging accessibility issues are why eventually some EVs with a  quick swap-able battery pack would  need to be developed if EVs were ever to fully replace ICE autos.  Either that or some massive charging infrastructure build out that puts a charger at every spot on the street like parking meters.

More likely IMHO, is that EVs will become more and more common but never completely replace all ICE cars. The eventual resource limited reality will be less “happy motoring” in general. Public transport, walking, bicycling, or (gasp) even horses are possible replacements. Suburbia will need to shrink and may even disappear.... How painfull that transition is over the coming decades depends on how intelligently  (or not) our political and social structures can adapt to the physically imposed limits.

[tszaboo]

Of course it will. Owning a car will be one of those things for weird people. With self driving cars, the number of necessary cars will be reduced. The resources they consume also. Accidents will rarely happen, therefore instead of repairing stuff, we can spend it on useful projects. We are talking about 3-5+% of total GDP lost because we are not using self driving cars. Imagine the possibilities. Going to work a lot faster, because less cars on the road. Never worrying about maintenance or parking space. And the world suddenly won't look like a parking garage.
I think in 10-15 years, owning a car will be the exception.

[Simon]

The same when you Park on an Company Parking lot who should pay the Bill for the Power when you recharge it there?
People got fired for recharching there Mobile Phone at Work.

You for real? almost more stupid an objection than he guy that cant be assed to plug it in........

[bd139]

Company should pay for it just as they should pay mileage as well.

[fubar.gr]

For that matter, I wonder how come the idea of an EV with a generator trailer to convert it into a plug in hybrid hasn't taken off.

Because trailers mess up the car's handling. Then, the car won't fit most parking spaces, and even if you find a suitable one, parking with a trailer attached is not that easy. Plus, trailers look ugly.

[Fungus]

For that matter, I wonder how come the idea of an EV with a generator trailer to convert it into a plug in hybrid hasn't taken off.

Because trailers mess up the car's handling. Then, the car won't fit most parking spaces, and even if you find a suitable one, parking with a trailer attached is not that easy. Plus, trailers look ugly.

The Tesla trailer would totally look like this, right? 

[woody]

Absolutely. But with a bigger connector than this 

[MT]

I've actually looked this up.

You obviously had not.

Your incentives are basically:
Not paying tax, not paying fees.

Nope, just point out the facts regular Norwegians think the subsidizing is unfair game.

This is like complaining, that EV drivers are not getting kicked in the back, like other drivers. I actually have
no problem with this. Taxes were reduced. Taxes, that are for the working people. How is this a bad thing?

Obviously you want to read in what you want to see not what said, so nope tax reductions obviously not for the
working class of Norwegians but i understand you as millionaire dont have problems with this.

Why do you think the gov is about to implement a tax named Tesla? Tesla tax! There is no BMW or Ford tax!

For example a  Volvo V60 T3 Kinetic is 26300eu inc tax in sweden, in Norway it's suddenly 40380eu!
Most sold cars 2017 in Noway is BMWi3 and Volkswagen Passat GTE. In Oslo its forbidden to drive diesels.

[MT]

How about other Electric Cars? Is the benefit for all or just for Tesla?

According to Automotive Industry Data (AID) 2016 Tesla is subbed by gov, i had thought it was for all EV's but apparently not.(disclaimer for 2017). NANDblog talks about Tesla, then example given for Tesla S. Tesla S is bought
by those who have 3 times the salary as blue collar working class Norwegian (according to their own research)
so yes its political based subsidizing of the rich on the behalf of the poor tax payers.(seriously, there are no such thing as poor Norwegian, haha! lamest joke since the Norwegian oil boom). Anyho for 2016, 2billion NOK was lost based on sales tax only, count in the rest and you see how unfair the whole scheme is, all in the name of making Musk rich.
That's the point Musk would not sell a single car in Norway unles he was subsidized.

Norwegian buss drivers have for some time complain to community council their buss lanes is clogged up with Tesla cars!

[Fungus]

According to Automotive Industry Data (AID) 2016 Tesla is subbed by gov, i had thought it was for all EV's but apparently not.(disclaimer for 2017).

Everybody driving Teslas adds more international prestige to a country than buying F35s does.

It's a lot less expensive, too.

[MT]

Everybody driving Teslas adds more international prestige to a country than buying F35s does.
It's a lot less expensive, too.

Yes, and its not even electric!

[tszaboo]

NANDblog talks about Tesla

Please tell me where exacly did I say that.
All those rich millionaire people must love their Nissan Leafs and VW e-ups also.

[3roomlab]

Please tell me where exacly did I say that.
All those rich millionaire people must love their Nissan Leafs and VW e-ups also.
https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/Top-10-Electric-Cars-Norway.png

imiev/ion has such low uptake *sad*

[tszaboo]

Please tell me where exacly did I say that.
All those rich millionaire people must love their Nissan Leafs and VW e-ups also.
https://c1cleantechnicacom-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/files/2017/05/Top-10-Electric-Cars-Norway.png

imiev/ion has such low uptake *sad*

It is a sad little ugly car, nobody really wants. This is the type of car you buy, because the lack of choice. And the Pegueot iOn is the same, only worse.
You get a car styled by the Japanese, built by the French. Worst of both words.

[Jeroen3]

NANDblog talks about Tesla

Please tell me where exacly did I say that.
All those rich millionaire people must love their Nissan Leafs and VW e-ups also.

No. It's because those are actually in stock.

[Zero999]

I disagree that people have to adapt.   Capitalism doesn't work that way - people will always go with what works best.

Call me a lefty loony but this isn't about the market. Unless someone figures out a way to make large quantities of biofuel, from a carbon neutral source, then electric vehicles are the way to go: we need to move away from the internal combustion engine for the sake of the planet!

If it doesn't suit your needs or that of the market: tough shit, you'll be forced down the EV route, at some point, whether you like it or not. Some European governments have introduced dates for phasing out petrol and diesel cars and it's likely to happen, at some point in the US too.

Now I support the free market. I like private companies to innovate and make lots of money for their shareholders, but I also agree with regulations to protect the environment.

[Simon]

Share holders actually seem to be the problem. you will find the most dynamic and innovative companies are those who don't have them. That is why many fear to try and innovate because they don't want any fuckups less the companies shares loose value. I think shareholders think they are more important than those actually making them money when in fact they are the least efficient part of the process. If a company is truly successful why does it need shareholders and that ongoing debt?

[Rick Law]

If share holders seem to be a problem before, they are a bigger problem now.

Bloomberg (big with stock analyst) just put out this story:

Tesla’s Newest Promises Break the Laws of Batteries
Elon Musk touted ranges and charging times that don’t compute with the current physics and economics of batteries.
By Tom Randall and John Lippert November 24, 2017

Elon Musk knows how to make promises. Even by his own standards, the promises made last week while introducing two new Tesla vehicles—the heavy-duty Semi Truck and the speedy Roadster—are monuments of envelope pushing. To deliver, according to close observers of battery technology, Tesla would have to far exceed what is currently thought possible.

(More, click on the link below)

Above quotes from article:
^{https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24/tesla-s-newest-promises-break-the-laws-of-batteries}

[tszaboo]

If share holders seem to be a problem before, they are a bigger problem now.

Bloomberg (big with stock analyst) just put out this story:

Tesla’s Newest Promises Break the Laws of Batteries
Elon Musk touted ranges and charging times that don’t compute with the current physics and economics of batteries.
By Tom Randall and John Lippert November 24, 2017

Elon Musk knows how to make promises. Even by his own standards, the promises made last week while introducing two new Tesla vehicles—the heavy-duty Semi Truck and the speedy Roadster—are monuments of envelope pushing. To deliver, according to close observers of battery technology, Tesla would have to far exceed what is currently thought possible.

(More, click on the link below)

Above quotes from article:
^{https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24/tesla-s-newest-promises-break-the-laws-of-batteries}

Solid state lithium is just around the corner. That is about double the capacity for given size, weight and price. It is 2-3 years away.

[Rick Law]

If share holders seem to be a problem before, they are a bigger problem now.

Bloomberg (big with stock analyst) just put out this story:

Tesla’s Newest Promises Break the Laws of Batteries
Elon Musk touted ranges and charging times that don’t compute with the current physics and economics of batteries.
By Tom Randall and John Lippert November 24, 2017

Elon Musk knows how to make promises. Even by his own standards, the promises made last week while introducing two new Tesla vehicles—the heavy-duty Semi Truck and the speedy Roadster—are monuments of envelope pushing. To deliver, according to close observers of battery technology, Tesla would have to far exceed what is currently thought possible.

(More, click on the link below)

Above quotes from article:
^{https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-24/tesla-s-newest-promises-break-the-laws-of-batteries}

Solid state lithium is just around the corner. That is about double the capacity for given size, weight and price. It is 2-3 years away.

2-3 years away is a life time.  They are already on deep doo-doo with their Model 3 production line problem, the article I linked to clearly shows they are loosing the heart of stock analyst.  If the stuff (battery or whatever) is as far off as 2 to 3 years, they had to manage expectation better.  They better get their ducks in a row.

[tszaboo]

2-3 years away is a life time.  They are already on deep doo-doo with their Model 3 production line problem, the article I linked to clearly shows they are loosing the heart of stock analyst.  If the stuff (battery or whatever) is as far off as 2 to 3 years, they had to manage expectation better.  They better get their ducks in a row.

Yes, with the Model 3, I dont know, why they have to reinvent the wheel. There are certain way to build cars, and they are doing their own thing, with welded aluminium and other fancy stuff. Which sounds nice, and then small repair jobs are more expensive than buying a new car from a different maker. And production is also complicated.
That is one of the reasons I'm still waiting for the electric car, and the expensive battery.
Right now, 30% of the battery price is formation and assembly. This can be reduced to almost nothing because you are creating high voltage cells with multiple electrodes inside. So imagine, that instead of the 3.7V cells, that needs to be individually balanced, filled, tested, graded - you get a 48V pack, something like the lead acid battery. Your throughput suddenly skyrockets. Also, energy requirement of the manufacturing is reduced drastically.
The way battery manufacturing formation is an extremely slow process, and it requires very large manufacturing setup. Because you need to charge and discharge the battery, individually, store it in a fireproof container, thousands at the same time, and cannot use high current, since it is not ready for that yet.
If you reduce the cost of the battery, the car becomes very very cheap. Let's take the VW e-golf, as there is regular golf also. The e-golf is 30K, regular golf is 20K. I've seen 17K as the battery price. Halve that. Suddenly you have a car, which is on-par in price with the old ICE golf. And faster, and accelerates better. And if the government rebates are still in place...

[Simon]

Not really, batteries cost 1000's the cars cost 10'000's. The battery can be 20% the price of the car.

[tszaboo]

Not really, batteries cost 1000's the cars cost 10'000's. The battery can be 20% the price of the car.

I've used an official quote for the battery pack.
But a nissan leaf 24KWH battery pack replacement costs 6500 USD + work, and that has a 24kWh battery, the golf has a 55kWh. I let you do the math.

[Simon]

Yes and how much are the cars?

I see a sion advertised as €16'000 and the battery is €4'000.

[tszaboo]

Yes and how much are the cars?

I see a sion advertised as €16'000 and the battery is €4'000.

eGolf is 30K USD, leaf is the same.
I usually dont look at EU pricing for these calculations, because they are really distorted by the ridiculous taxes, and service costs. For example, the eGolf is 40K EUR here. And you are supposed to haggle it down and buy it as a company car. What a joke.

[jonovid]

regarding the tesla truck

- impressed that tesla has given it a go,  an EV big rig.    curious about the actual mileage like will it survive in the real world? 
- the cab design is ugly IMO 

tesla should have a gas electric turbine truck
electric motors powerd by supercapacitors that are then charged by diesel-fed micro gas turbines with recuperators.
that can run on a range of fuels including diesel, biofuels, compressed natural gas and liquid petroleum gas.
as used in the Jaguar C-X75 concept car  - bladon jets  low cost micro-turbine technology


low cost micro-turbine technology