Tesla existential threat?
03-08-2018, 08:35 PM
#91
Rennlist Member
{blush} thank you 928 GT R
03-08-2018, 08:39 PM
#92
Rennlist Member
ROFL
so 1 barrel of oil delivered to a power plant = 647.25 kWh usable in someone's EV battery
it takes 3,375 kWh to refine the annual gasoline usage for a 24 mpg car driving 13,500
3,375 kwh @ 647.25 kWh-barrel-o-oil = 5.214
the Chevy Bolt/VW eGolf/Nissan Leaf all get about 4 miles/kwh
for the electricity usage to just refine the gasoline for the ICE 24 mpg car you can drive the Bolt/eGolf/Leaf 3,375 * 4 = 13,500 miles
now that's funny!!!
so 1 barrel of oil delivered to a power plant = 647.25 kWh usable in someone's EV battery
it takes 3,375 kWh to refine the annual gasoline usage for a 24 mpg car driving 13,500
3,375 kwh @ 647.25 kWh-barrel-o-oil = 5.214
the Chevy Bolt/VW eGolf/Nissan Leaf all get about 4 miles/kwh
for the electricity usage to just refine the gasoline for the ICE 24 mpg car you can drive the Bolt/eGolf/Leaf 3,375 * 4 = 13,500 miles
now that's funny!!!
so let's get this straight - at 4 miles/kwh (actual numbers for eco-box EV's) you no longer need the gasoline for a 24 mpg car (and therefore no longer need the barrels of oil) and the net-effect to the electric grid is _ZERO_ change - no increase in production/consumption/emissions from a grid perspective - but a loss of 28 barrels of year of demand for barrels of oil when you stop using gasoline.
I've also heard a statement from people that the oil industry isn't blocking EV adoption because it really won't affect them- well given a net loss of 28 barrels/year of oil demand for every EV shipped and driven 13,500 miles a year - I'm thinking they do have a lot to loose - I also know their engineers and scientists and business analysis have access to the same numbers I have access to - and they've know this for decades (the efficiency of EV motors have been known for decades) me thinks they really don't like the electrification plan - it WILL result in lower demand for their product - and hence reduced revenues/profits…and that _IF_ we leave the grid running on fossil fuels…which is not the case…
so the combination of: increased efficiency in the use of fossil fuels, lower demand for gasoline, and the ability to move away from fossil fuels all together represents a MAJOR threat to the oil industry - one that so far they have been able to avoid...I wonder where we'll be in 10 years.
Blockbuster I'd like to introduce you to Netflix....this is the very definition of disruption - I now more fully understand the the total threat that EV's represent - and also more fully appreciate the resistance that they are being met with - if done correctly, and fully - this does represent a fundamental shift in power away from the Fossil fuel industry - and one they will not let go as easily as Blockbuster let Netflix eat their lunch…couple this with the lower maintenance cost for EV's (where as chevy makes fully 60% of their total revenue for each vehicle sold post sale in ongoing maintenance) - and the auto industry and oil industry are facing a complete reworking of their revenue models and annuity models for personal transportation).
wow - apologies for the stream of consciousness thinking here - but even I hadn't fully realized all these implications…
a zero maintenance EV being powered by renewable energy represent a near zero revenue opportunity for the existing auto manufactures and fossil fuel industry - and right now they are the some of the biggest industries in the world...wow just wow,
back to the Thread topic…
yes Tesla is a threat - cause they showed the world this can happen - no wonder no one likes them
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 03-08-2018 at 10:39 PM.
03-08-2018, 09:22 PM
#93
Burning Brakes
And, if there is ever a gas shortage with continued access to electricity, there would be less paralysis for whomever has a hybrid or all-electric car.
The figures and arguments that daveo4porsche presents here suggest that plug-in hybrids (not just all-electric vehicles) still have big advantages, environment-wise and efficiency-wise, over gas-only vehicles.
03-08-2018, 09:35 PM
#94
Rennlist Member
@cometguy yes I agree
in fact Chevy found that the Volt's gas supply was so underused - i.e. never - that they updated the Volt's software to notify the user when the gasoline engine has not be run in 6 MONTHS - and they run it anyways to avoid the fuel getting stale in the tank…
https://forum.quartertothree.com/t/v...es-stale/69063
this is why the freight train industry move to diesel/electric locomotives decades ago - that industry is purely efficiency based and they wouldn't move just for eco-reasons the improved efficiency and performance of electrical hybrid designs are the basis of all major large scale freight shipping (both large ocean based freighters and locomotives, and military ships - if they aren't nuclear) are all gas/diesel turbines for efficiency and cost reasons and have been for decades - and there is not a eco-green bone in the body of _ANYONE_ in either of those industries that made that decision…in fact many oil tankers are hybrid gas/diesel turbine designs for efficiency reasons and are one of the reasons gasoline is only $3.50/gallon...again that's funny!
for everyone else this hybrid/EV thing sucks - but for the oil industry themselves they want maximum efficiency - really really funny.
in fact Chevy found that the Volt's gas supply was so underused - i.e. never - that they updated the Volt's software to notify the user when the gasoline engine has not be run in 6 MONTHS - and they run it anyways to avoid the fuel getting stale in the tank…
https://forum.quartertothree.com/t/v...es-stale/69063
this is why the freight train industry move to diesel/electric locomotives decades ago - that industry is purely efficiency based and they wouldn't move just for eco-reasons the improved efficiency and performance of electrical hybrid designs are the basis of all major large scale freight shipping (both large ocean based freighters and locomotives, and military ships - if they aren't nuclear) are all gas/diesel turbines for efficiency and cost reasons and have been for decades - and there is not a eco-green bone in the body of _ANYONE_ in either of those industries that made that decision…in fact many oil tankers are hybrid gas/diesel turbine designs for efficiency reasons and are one of the reasons gasoline is only $3.50/gallon...again that's funny!
for everyone else this hybrid/EV thing sucks - but for the oil industry themselves they want maximum efficiency - really really funny.
03-09-2018, 12:27 AM
#95
this is why the freight train industry move to diesel/electric locomotives decades ago - that industry is purely efficiency based and they wouldn't move just for eco-reasons the improved efficiency and performance of electrical hybrid designs are the basis of all major large scale freight shipping (both large ocean based freighters and locomotives, and military ships - if they aren't nuclear) are all gas/diesel turbines for efficiency and cost reasons and have been for decades - and there is not a eco-green bone in the body of _ANYONE_ in either of those industries that made that decision…in fact many oil tankers are hybrid gas/diesel turbine designs for efficiency reasons and are one of the reasons gasoline is only $3.50/gallon...again that's funny!
The vast majority of commercial freight ships are powered by diesel PISTON engines, not turbines. And not even via an electric generator, but in fact by direct drive to the prop shaft. Turbine/electric power units are more prevalent in military and passenger vessels.
Similarly, diesel/electric locomotives are powered by diesel piston engines as well, though they do power an electrical generator, which then powers the traction motors. This engine/generator system isn't strictly a hybrid either, as the diesel engine never directly drives the wheels. Instead, this system is considered to be the transmission system in a diesel-electric locomotive. This wasn't purely done for fuel efficiency, but rather for mechanical simplicity, and allowed the use of higher output engines. It also takes advantage of the low RPM high torque characteristics of electric motors.
Anyway, carry on
The following users liked this post:
daveo4porsche (08-10-2019)
03-09-2018, 12:33 AM
#96
Rennlist Member
Thank you for your correction beaudawg - I love the internet!
the locomotives in that case are hybrids like a Chevy Volt - the Volts gas engine is purely a generator.
the locomotives in that case are hybrids like a Chevy Volt - the Volts gas engine is purely a generator.
03-09-2018, 01:03 AM
#97
Nordschleife Master
One uses twice the energy of the other.
Energy can not be created or destroyed it can only change form.
If the energy is derived from a coal fired power station and your car weighs 2.2 tonnes and is 90% efficient and that power station is producing at 35% efficiency......... 0.35 x 0.9 = 31.5% efficiency overall. Now that heavy Tesla - to make it simple 31.5/100 x 269,000,000 = 84.7MJ equivalent
Now that 25% efficient ICE car, the Polo GTI 25/100 x 134,500,000 = 67.35MJ equivalent
oops the little Polo GTI is more effective in its use of energy.
Weight makes a mockery of something like the model S - it takes too much energy to move a heavy car around, particularly a 2.2 tonne one -lashed to fossil fuels for real world use.
We don't live in a world of natural gas efficient power plants. You have to pick a blend that reflects the real world. Which is dependant on geography, geology and latitude.
oops
If you want a real answer its a grid developed around 40% nuclear, 40% renewables (which largely means hydro) and 20% fast start gas. Roof top solar has a significant role to play if, and only if, the transmission and distribution networks are upgraded to cope with vastly variable uploading from intermittent embedded generators.
It will take fifty years to achieve this.
The sooner people get off the politics the sooner we will get to real meaningful answers which are largely out there.
Energy can not be created or destroyed it can only change form.
If the energy is derived from a coal fired power station and your car weighs 2.2 tonnes and is 90% efficient and that power station is producing at 35% efficiency......... 0.35 x 0.9 = 31.5% efficiency overall. Now that heavy Tesla - to make it simple 31.5/100 x 269,000,000 = 84.7MJ equivalent
Now that 25% efficient ICE car, the Polo GTI 25/100 x 134,500,000 = 67.35MJ equivalent
oops the little Polo GTI is more effective in its use of energy.
Weight makes a mockery of something like the model S - it takes too much energy to move a heavy car around, particularly a 2.2 tonne one -lashed to fossil fuels for real world use.
We don't live in a world of natural gas efficient power plants. You have to pick a blend that reflects the real world. Which is dependant on geography, geology and latitude.
oops
If you want a real answer its a grid developed around 40% nuclear, 40% renewables (which largely means hydro) and 20% fast start gas. Roof top solar has a significant role to play if, and only if, the transmission and distribution networks are upgraded to cope with vastly variable uploading from intermittent embedded generators.
It will take fifty years to achieve this.
The sooner people get off the politics the sooner we will get to real meaningful answers which are largely out there.
03-09-2018, 02:02 AM
#98
Rennlist Member
.
and yet the EV which is heavier provably goes further on the same amount of “fuel” - the analysis is neither sound or logical and lack sufficient context as what the joules are accomplishing. What I can assume in the analysis is the joules requirement is covering acceleration, but the analysis lacks any modeling of what it takes to maintain speed over time/distance. It also flys in the face of observable, factual, published, and tested consumption metrics which do not demonstrate that a VW Polo is twice as efficient at driving a specific distance at a specific speed and do demonstrate in the real world the consumption of an EV is nearly 3 times as efficient and an ICE power plant.
so forgive me if I find it neither logical or sound. Unless you are saying Tesla’s do not in fact go 300 miles on 100 kWH of energy, and the Chevy Bolt is not a 236 mile vehicle with a 60 kWH battery. Is that what you are saying?
the only place the analysis works is in documenting that it takes more energy to acceralate a heavier object - but we knew that. The analysis lacks reconciliation with observable consumption stats - until that is reconciled it is invalid.
Kudos for logic and sound analysis.
so forgive me if I find it neither logical or sound. Unless you are saying Tesla’s do not in fact go 300 miles on 100 kWH of energy, and the Chevy Bolt is not a 236 mile vehicle with a 60 kWH battery. Is that what you are saying?
the only place the analysis works is in documenting that it takes more energy to acceralate a heavier object - but we knew that. The analysis lacks reconciliation with observable consumption stats - until that is reconciled it is invalid.
03-09-2018, 10:35 AM
#99
Instructor
Originally Posted by ADias
Kudos for logic and sound analysis. The Stanford position paper posted above lacks both but so goes academia these days.
03-09-2018, 11:37 AM
#100
Rennlist Member
I’ve read the Stanford review - I agree with some of the trends and the over all vector - but time lines are too aggressive and some of their assumptions are already wrong...
umm yeah they went there and drank that kookaid which even I a die hard Tesla fan and owner knew was BS when Elon promised it.
rather than focus on the specific claims and dates my take away is that “change is coming” and it’s potentially bigger than most people realize - it’s the convergence of several factors that are breathtaking in scope and will interact with each other in ways no one has ever anticipated
”Tesla will be fully automated by end of 2017”
rather than focus on the specific claims and dates my take away is that “change is coming” and it’s potentially bigger than most people realize - it’s the convergence of several factors that are breathtaking in scope and will interact with each other in ways no one has ever anticipated
- more highly efficient propulsion systems driven by macro-modular fueling systems
- an EV doesn’t care how the electricity is generated - change the source keep the car
- battery technology will evolve and eventually become competitive not from a total energy density point of view, but enough that weight/volume and capacity will be more than sufficient to match or slightly be slightly better than GVW of existing ICE vehicles for equal range
- batteries are a modular component of an EV and can be swapped as newer tech becomes available - swap the battery keep the car.
- near zero maintenance transportation fleet
- 70-90% percent reduction in post sale maintenance cost/revenues
- the _ONLY_ recommended maintenance in the Chevy Bolt manual is every 150,000 miles a $75 fluid swap of the battery cooling fluid
- compare that to a Silverado sale where it's been estimated that on a $60,xxx new car sale - $7,895 in maintenance happens over the subsequent 8 years, and the stealer is likely to capture 80% of that revenue, they don't make a lot of money selling new cars, but they do make a lot servicing them - EV flip that model on it's head - no wonder the dealer network really doesn't want to sell you that super efficient EV.
- tire rotations every 7,500 miles
- that's it - no other maintenance required - this decimates the stealer network's post sale revenue model
- much greater longevity of the capital asset in that EV drive trains have a much longer use cycle than ICE drive trains - dramatically changing the cost equations of the life cycle of the vehicle
- ultimately lowering the volume of new cars sold…
- Potential rise of highly automated driving systems that can potentially take over some/all driving tasks over time - both personal and professional
- lowering the need for ownership
- changing the labor equation cost of providing shared transportation solutions
- accelerated reduction in overall demand for for fossil fuels
- 3x more efficient drive trains drastically lower demand for fossil fuels, and that if you leave fossil fuels as the energy source, and we all know that's not the trend - we may argue about the slope but there is virtually no disagreement on the overall trend
- rise of renewable energy production via competitive cost through evolution, innovation and scale/volume, and legislated change to move away from dirty energy sources.
- the possibility of complete lack of car ownership - city first - rual areas maybe never…but most cars are in the city as is most of the population
- a significant percentage of my younger co-workers don’t own a car and ride share everything! even ones with families
- they are mostly a zero car family, or 1 car family (an adequate range EV for mom/kids to run around the neighborhood - dad commutes to work via car share)
- this means fewer cars are sold as demand is being met by a shared higher utilization infrastructure
- and the cars that are sold have a lower total revenue life cycle due to longevity and reduced maintenance costs
- a significant percentage of my younger co-workers don’t own a car and ride share everything! even ones with families
any ONE of these is a big deal - put all of these at once into the mixer and quite frankly no one really knows what is going to play out - but I think we can all recognize it’s not going to be the same as it ever was - and it’s unlikely to raise the fortunes of the existing powerhouse industries (automobile/fossil fuel) - it WILL leave some previously very big players with out a chair to sit in when the music stops - power/influence is going to shift over the next 20 years...
it's simply breath taking in my opinion - and there is a lot of money to be made if you can place the correct long term bets…but it requires deep commitment and some insight that I lack to see how this is really going to play out…
it's simply breath taking in my opinion - and there is a lot of money to be made if you can place the correct long term bets…but it requires deep commitment and some insight that I lack to see how this is really going to play out…
Last edited by daveo4porsche; 03-09-2018 at 12:08 PM.
03-09-2018, 11:59 AM
#101
Instructor
Forget the timeline. 2030 is stupidly too early.
But all the trends are there. That report is a proper roadmap even if the time estimate is likely off.
Like roof top solar. Once solar tiles = cost of normal tiles (and yes a while from now but will happen) then it will still take 20 years at the current roof replacement rate (5mm residential a year in US) to retire the full inventory.
But all the trends are there. That report is a proper roadmap even if the time estimate is likely off.
Like roof top solar. Once solar tiles = cost of normal tiles (and yes a while from now but will happen) then it will still take 20 years at the current roof replacement rate (5mm residential a year in US) to retire the full inventory.
03-09-2018, 09:47 PM
#102
About 30 years ago I led a consulting project that gave me access to all the economics of the EV1 and to many of the parties involved. A lot of the same overaggressive nonsense I hear today about EV ubiquity is the same nonsense I heard 30 years ago. We're closer, no doubt, but the collective wisdom is still living in fantasy land with some of these projections. Every one has turned out to be wrong and every one being made today will be wrong as well. We'll get there, but not on any of these ridiculous timelines.
Still waiting for neighbor to be able to call his Model S to come pick him up at the front of the restaurant...
Still waiting for neighbor to be able to call his Model S to come pick him up at the front of the restaurant...
03-09-2018, 09:51 PM
#103
Instructor
Originally Posted by Archimedes
About 30 years ago I led a consulting project that gave me access to all the economics of the EV1 and to many of the parties involved. A lot of the same overaggressive nonsense I hear today about EV ubiquity is the same nonsense I heard 30 years ago. We're closer, no doubt, but the collective wisdom is still living in fantasy land with some of these projections. Every one has turned out to be wrong and every one being made today will be wrong as well. We'll get there, but not on any of these ridiculous timelines.
Still waiting for neighbor to be able to call his Model S to come pick him up at the front of the restaurant...
Still waiting for neighbor to be able to call his Model S to come pick him up at the front of the restaurant...
True value added.
Please. Don't hold back.
03-09-2018, 11:59 PM
#104
Originally Posted by urbanscribe
Wow. So insightful. So deep. Thank you. Not sure could have ended the day without this glimpse into heavenly enlightenment you were so kind to share. Us younger generations ache for the wisdom.
True value added.
Please. Don't hold back.
True value added.
Please. Don't hold back.
03-10-2018, 03:22 PM
#105
A major drawback of EV from people like me that live in the city in a condo or apt building is that they were never designed to add charging stations and adding them in now is costly. In one building I know of a Tesla owner paid 30k to add the charger. It’s got to be done to code and usually involves chipping up concrete and is a mess to do. So if they want to penetrate city dwellers EV market then it’s going to take a big effort and lots of cash to add the charging stations and another electric meter.