Electric Cars Continue to Make Inroads

Thought I'd lookup the Tesla Model S battery spec and it's 85kWh.

So 10 minutes equates to 500kW charging power, assuming 100% efficiency.

On Thursday, December 29, 2016 at 3:50:00 PM UTC-8, Mike Perkins wrote: ...

Usually fast charging is not 0-100% capacity only ~10-80% - so there is a bit of marketing speak there.

Tesla charges at 135kW at the moment using 400V.

Systems with powers in the range of 300-500kW are being actively planned.

One problem is just getting the current into the connector. To alleviate that issue recent designs are going to 800V with currents in the 300-500Amp range.

kevin

Meanwhile, coal is being burnt to generate all of that power...

Progressively less, in advanced industrial countries. The US is starting to look rather third world these days, quite apart from the kind of politician it elects.

In Europe it is mainly being well received because of the government subsidies e.g. by having lower tax on electric vehicles.

Once those subsidies end, the sales and lease of electric vehicles abrubtly comes to a halt. Apparently most users still look more at their out-of-pocket costs than at general advantages. When cost is the same, the disadvantages of electric vehicles, even when small, make the majority of buyers go back to gasoline.

Sort of like how Republicans actively work to undercut the effectiveness of government and then use that as as evidence that government is ineffective, Republicans actively work to hinder investment in renewable energy, and then mention that EVs are "actually" powered by fossil fuels as evidence of their non-viability as a technology.

If the petroleum industry in the US actually had to pay the taxes that everyone else pays (rather than a negative tax rate as ExxonMobil has been able to pull off from time to time), gas prices would be such that EVs would be a no-brainer.

It hardly matters, though, the technology is advancing so rapidly and costs keep coming down such that within a few years they'll sell themselves simply on out-of-pocket cost arguments as you say. Particularly when given the chronic instability in the Middle East, gas prices spiking above $3 a gallon again in the US hardly seems far-fetched.

even if it is it doesn't matter, a powerplant is much more efficient that a gasoline engine, around here the excess heat is used for district heating makeing it even more efficient and powerplants have efficient filters and don't put exhaust in the city where people live

With the current federal tax credit the capitalized cost on a Toyota Prius is only slightly less than on an equivalent trim line Chevy Volt.

I assume the only reason the Prius sells more strongly, even though it's an unattractive, gutless Japanese econo-box that handles like a pig, as compared to the Volt which looks great IMO, handles like a sports car and has the pep of an Impala on steroids and will do way better wrt MPGe if you have somewhere to plug it in, is simply that Toyota is considered to be a more reliable brand.

Which is unfortunate for GM in the US, but GM also has its sights set on the Chinese market for its hybrids, where "historical reasons" make Chevrolet and Buick more appealing brands for the consumer there than Toyota.

Yes, depending on the country and the government in power at the time, electricity will be generated by different sources. There is no perfect source of power for sure. But when you run a car on gasoline or diesel there is only one choice of power... dead dinosaurs.

Which Republicans stopped you from investing in an alternative energy company?

Cheers, James Arthur

There is a disconnect somewhere. I don't know where you live, but I assume it is Europe. My understanding is that there is much less open land than in the US and the boundaries between towns are mostly just signs without open countryside, i.e. they have all grown together. So I'm not sure where a power plant might be located that would not be near significant population. Then you say there are enough people near a power plant that the excess heat can be used for... heating! That seems to contradict the idea that the power plants are further from the populations than the cars would be.

Here, when an employee gets a (normally leased) car from their employer, and is allowed to use it for private trips, they have to add 20% of the catalog value of the car to their yearly income before income tax. This translates to paying 6-10% of the catalog value of the car in yearly taxes.

Hybrid and electrical cars were exempt from that. Hybrid cars no longer are from 1-1-2017, fully electrical cars still are (the added income is 4% of the catalog value).

This change has made the sales of hybrid cars, which primarily were sold as company cars via a lease construct, drop to zero. Fully electrical cars already had a small sales figure because of the known limitations.

there is a bit difference between car exhaust at ground level outside my windows and a powerplant with a 170meter tall chimney a kilometer from the nearest house

I think he did not claim that the power plants would be further away, but a fact is that the power plants emit less unwanted pollution than a car does.

Use of excess heat from a power plant for heating of households is not as attractive as it used to be, over here I don't think new installations are being built, existing ones are sometimes being extended to new quarters. Modern power plants can operate at such high efficiency that the waste heat is not hot enough for this purpose and the efficiency of the electrical power production has to be reduced to provide enough for heating. Also, the distribution and metering of heat distributed that way has proven to be problematic.

Illogical. Even if you were right--which you--aren't, there are lots of federal and state taxes on fuel. Fuel is not escaping taxation. EVs are. And their makers. And users. But not fuel.

Mind you, I'm against special deals for anyone. Your system of special deals for some folks *you* like just leads to a giant corrupt mess, with everyone begging for handouts.

Speaking of subsidies and tax-avoidance, you might look at GM, for example. They paid negative $2 billion in tax last year on $10 billion profit.

A few years back GM paid negative $34 billion, give or take (mostly take). Plus the givermint cancelled the monies GM owed people, and took their pension debt off their hands too.

E.g., their Feb. 15, 2013 10-K shows a -$34.831 billion dollar tax credit.

Insert your outrage here ______________.

Tesla's gotten some pretty big gimmes too, IIRC.

If it makes sense, people will flock in. We agree. Limited range and high cost have made EVs impractical thus far. Better batteries would help, as would lighter EVs instead of electrified land-yachts.

Cheers, James Arthur

Seems odd that there would be "zero" sales. Hybrid cars are very popular here and I don't believe they are only bought because of government incentives.

Really? How much of a difference?

Is that clear?

When you say "over here", it would help if you would indicate where "here" is. I don't assume all of Europe does things the same way.