OT: Tesla Road Test

The AC on my truck reduces the MPG about 5%.

These articles imply significantly less carbon dioxide generated with a total is still far less than conventional vehicles.

kevin

I've seen an analysis that showed electric cars are no more efficient end to end than hydrocarbon powered vehicles. But the fuel cost is around $20 for me to drive 200 miles while in an electric vehicle it will cost about a third of that. So how can the electric car use the same amount of source fuel and yet cost so much less to run?

I suppose the improvement in emissions comes from the fact that while carbon fueled vehicles use carbon for 100% of their energy, a portion of the energy for electric cars comes from non-carbon sources. I am looking into rate reduction for off hours charging (night time). From what I've heard about solar energy, there is a surplus in mid day when solar is at a peak and demand has not yet risen toward the daily peak. Seems that is a time when some amount of charging could be done to help deal with the demand/supply imbalance.

Free energy? You were doin' fine until you started spouting nonsense.

No, it's real. If you heat up a battery you increase the energy content (depending on the details of the chemistry). You can actually get more energy out than you put in. Likewise if a battery is charged warm and allowed to cool down it will lose some of the energy put into it before one electron is removed. It has to do with the work function of materials.

I didn't say the energy didn't come from somewhere. It comes from the heat that goes into the battery. This is just like charging a capacitor and then pulling the plates apart increasing the voltage on the cap, where the added energy comes from the work done to pull the plates apart. If the heat to the battery is environmental the added energy is free in the $$$ sense.

Like I said, if you charge the battery while it is cool (and not too fast which will heat it up) and take it out into the heat, you will gain some energy at no added cost. You can see this if you use the Tesla range estimator which factors in temperature. Oddly enough it doesn't seem to hold for all battery/car combinations, but it does for most.

The usual "conservative" "logic": work your ass off to de-regulate and subsidize the fossil fuel industry, then complain that EVs aren't actually low emission because they're ultimately powered from fossil fuels.

UK tax rules are odd. Leasing a car can make sense if your income is high and you can claim what you pay for the lease against income as a business expense.

UK acquaintances did exactly that, but keeping it tidy meant paying a tax accountant quite a bit every year.

prolly closer to 2-3KW heat load more if there's lots of glass. that figure to be divided by the coefficient of performance of the AC to determine power draw.

Feh, these numbers are too high in my experience with my car. Once the interior is cooled down on an 85-90 degree day flipping the switch to "Eco" can maintain the cabin at a comfortable temp drawing under a kW. And it's less than that on average because the regenerative braking system gives priority to accessory power over dumping energy into the battery, and even on just a slight downhill you'll be regenerating -2 or

-3 kW of excess velocity which would've likely just been dumped into the brake pads and wasted in a non-hybrid.

Yes, the Montreal Economic Institute is a right-wing "think tank" who receives "donations" from the petroleum industry to discover such amazing insights!

"Common sense, both economically and ecologically speaking, argues in favor of reducing these subsidies, and even eliminating them," the study concludes."

Yep, I bet.

how

my

r in

of

eme.

ikes

ll.

is

or

dn't

.html

As usual, John Larkin misses the point. Electric cars are expensive because they aren't made in the same numbers as gasoline-powered cars. Subsidising them now means that they will be built in larger numbers now to get produc tion volumes up now, rather than later.

It's not a cost effective way of reducing CO2 emissions at the moment, in p art because quite lot of the energy used to charge the batteries is being g enerated by burning fossil carbon, but that's going to change too (if gulli ble suckers like John Larkin don't get to be too influential).

It makes more sense if you think about the process that is going on, and wh ere it needs to get to.

Numbers don't have wings.

If one views the climatological effects of CO2 emission as a non-issue and fossil fuels as being an essentially unlimited resource then I imagine the whole exercise would seem pointless.

And in an abstract I guess you could argue fossil fuels are an essentially unlimited resource. If you run out here you could always harvest hydrocarbons on Titan. If you run out in the solar system you could move on to Proxima Centauri. Mine the galaxy. Then the whole Universe. Drill baby drill, out to the stars.

John Larkin wrote on 6/23/2017 10:02 AM:

Figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure!

You wouldn't say that if you drove one. John is actually ticked because every Tesla made is so much faster off the line than his car.

The 2nd gen Volt out-accelerates the base Model S, at least in the

he

ll

show

t my

my

ver in

nt of

ike

treme.

bikes

rill.

This

me

for

ar

uldn't

my

ns.html

se they aren't made in the same numbers as gasoline-powered cars. Subsidisi ng them now means that thsey will be built in larger numbers now to get pro duction volumes up now, rather than later.

But the current subsidizing scheme may not be the most effective way. It i s currently demand side subsidies. Giving more money to auto makers does n ot mean they will make cheaper cars. They tends to make proprietary parts to lock into their car sales. I would like to see more subsidies for commo n auto parts. We need true supply side subsidies.