Tesla existential threat? - Page 4 - Rennlist - Porsche Discussion Forums

Notices
Taycan & Mission-E The Electric Porsche
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by:

Tesla existential threat?

Reply

Old 03-07-2018, 08:08 AM
  #46  
RRDnA
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 375
Default

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.

Last edited by RRDnA; 03-07-2018 at 08:44 AM.
RRDnA is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 11:12 AM
  #47  
urbanscribe
User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 145
Default

Originally Posted by RRDnA
It will take fifty years to achieve this.
Not in Europe, Asia or RoW. Which is where it matters for P development roadmap.

You're massively underestimating non US resource poor industrialized countries determination to move off fossil and the cost curves of the products involved.

Certainly, yes, for the US (and amusingly Russia) with protectionism, govt picking winners and losers, tarifs on solar panels, denials etc it may take 50 years for it to hit your back yard. But to think that that applies to the rest of the world is not realistic.
urbanscribe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 01:24 PM
  #48  
daveo4porsche
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
daveo4porsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 495
Default

Coal is only 30% of the US energy mix and shrinking - and you can’t use coal in a ICE - I’ll stand by my statement you are better off burning an ICE fuel for electricity than trying to use it for motion. Even with coal the worse case in terms of actual efficiency is that the EV is about equal in terms of impact. There are several states in the US where coal makes up 0% of the grid power...transition will happen fast than 50 years.

at the end of the day we keep circling back to something we already know - Coal is a terrible power source. But the conclusion that we should keep driving gas cars because coal sucks as a power source for electricity does not follow. We already have technologies deployed for electrical generation that are more efficient/better than coal and better than the the current state of the art ICE engines. Even in the worst case scenario for existing grid generation today coal is only a portion of your kWh consumption and a shrinking one at that. The conclusion is not to keep driving gas cars until everything is perfect, the conclusion is let's begin the transition to EV's and simultaneously continuing working to make the electrical grid better…

EV's are better becaues

a) they can run on any fuel - 30% coal today - clean fusion tomorrow
b) they leverage an efficient and existing distribution infrastructure
c) current battery weights and energy densities will get better over time - just because 100 kWh batteries are 1500 lbs today doesn't mean they will continue to be that heavy tomorrow
d) for non-coal based power sources EV's are vastly more efficient than burning refining/distributing/burning gasoline

it's super funny that the only argument against an EV is that "coal sucks" - ok we know that - stop using coal.

its not politics it’s science

Last edited by daveo4porsche; 03-07-2018 at 02:41 PM.
daveo4porsche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 04:37 PM
  #49  
Archimedes
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Archimedes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,296
Default

Originally Posted by urbanscribe View Post
Not in Europe, Asia or RoW. Which is where it matters for P development roadmap.

You're massively underestimating non US resource poor industrialized countries determination to move off fossil and the cost curves of the products involved.

Certainly, yes, for the US (and amusingly Russia) with protectionism, govt picking winners and losers, tarifs on solar panels, denials etc it may take 50 years for it to hit your back yard. But to think that that applies to the rest of the world is not realistic.
Sure, all those resource poor countries are going to magically create the infrastructure required for truly significant deployment of EVs. Riiiiiiggghhht.

EVs are the future and it will be relatively soon. Relatively. Not tomorrow. Not the next day. There are still huge challenges to the deployment of EVs in large numbers and, as has been the case in all massive technological transitions, it will take time. And money. A lot of both. And both are scarce resources.

I am excited that some EVs are emerging that at least look interesting to own, rather than just the bland garbage Tesla's been pumping out.
Archimedes is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:18 PM
  #50  
F1CrazyDriver
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
F1CrazyDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,023
Default

Archimedes is just hating. I have offered to meet in person and show to me the bad quality vs. a 5 series of the same time period. He wont. Sadly he does not understand the logistics behind assembling a supply chain for manufacturing and does not give credit where credit is due. He compares company's that have over 60+ years to develop a supply chain and have cash coming in to fund R&D while tesla has to sell "beta" cars to survive. Tesla changed the game. Period. Accept it. It's a great car.
Archimedes, can you go back to the GT3 section and hate on how you can't get an allocation or CCx options....diva rennlist members.
F1CrazyDriver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:20 PM
  #51  
urbanscribe
User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 145
Default

Originally Posted by Archimedes
Sure, all those resource poor countries are going to magically create the infrastructure required for truly significant deployment of EVs. Riiiiiiggghhht.

I am excited that some EVs are emerging that at least look interesting to own, rather than just the bland garbage Tesla's been pumping out.

Angry, vocal and misinformed.

California, Germany, China, India, Japan are resource poor industrialized states/countries.

Bland garbage indeed. You funny.

Sorry the future is such a scary place for you.
urbanscribe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:30 PM
  #52  
Archimedes
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Archimedes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,296
Default

Originally Posted by F1CrazyDriver View Post
Archimedes is just hating. I have offered to meet in person and show to me the bad quality vs. a 5 series of the same time period. He wont. Sadly he does not understand the logistics behind assembling a supply chain for manufacturing and does not give credit where credit is due. He compares company's that have over 60+ years to develop a supply chain and have cash coming in to fund R&D while tesla has to sell "beta" cars to survive. Tesla changed the game. Period. Accept it. It's a great car.
Archimedes, can you go back to the GT3 section and hate on how you can't get an allocation or CCx options....diva rennlist members.
What are you talking about? Meet? When did we discuss that?

From your post though, I'm guessing you're a Tesla owner/fanboy though, as it's always the same anytime anyone has a negative view of Tesla. 'Hater!' 'Troll!" Nonsense.

Tesla definitely changed the game. And forced EV development forward. But their cars have been, just as you said, 'beta' cars, which is fine when you have no competition. They're about to have a lot of it. From those companies you mention that have over 60+ years to develop a supply chain and tons of money to fund R&D. That's what I'm commenting on, not the past, but the future. IMO, Tesla's consumer auto business is going to get destroyed by the completion that's coming.
Archimedes is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:32 PM
  #53  
Archimedes
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Archimedes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,296
Default

Originally Posted by urbanscribe View Post

Angry, vocal and misinformed.

California, Germany, China, India, Japan are resource poor industrialized states/countries.

Bland garbage indeed. You funny.

Sorry the future is such a scary place for you.
Again, disagree so resort to personal attacks. It's become a Rennlist trend these days.

I have no fear of the future and I'm excited that some cool EVs are starting to come to market so there's something better than Tesla to choose from. We'd love to own an EV at some point, just not a massively overpriced, bland Tesla.
Archimedes is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:37 PM
  #54  
F1CrazyDriver
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
F1CrazyDriver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 2,023
Default

Originally Posted by Archimedes View Post
What are you talking about? Meet? When did we discuss that?

From your post though, I'm guessing you're a Tesla owner/fanboy though, as it's always the same anytime anyone has a negative view of Tesla. 'Hater!' 'Troll!" Nonsense.

Tesla definitely changed the game. And forced EV development forward. But their cars have been, just as you said, 'beta' cars, which is fine when you have no competition. They're about to have a lot of it. From those companies you mention that have over 60+ years to develop a supply chain and tons of money to fund R&D. That's what I'm commenting on, not the past, but the future. IMO, Tesla's consumer auto business is going to get destroyed by the completion that's coming.
That's what everyone said about Apple. Motorola / blackberry has been building phones for decades and will destroy Apple.
Tesla is at least 10 years ahead of everyone else in Technology and integration. Fit and finish they will pass Tesla. Technology not so much.
Did Tesla deny you CCx options ?
F1CrazyDriver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:42 PM
  #55  
urbanscribe
User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 145
Default

Originally Posted by Archimedes
Again, disagree so resort to personal attacks. It's become a Rennlist trend these days.

I have no fear of the future and I'm excited that some cool EVs are starting to come to market so there's something better than Tesla to choose from. We'd love to own an EV at some point, just not a massively overpriced, bland Tesla.
Originally Posted by F1CrazyDriver
That's what everyone said about Apple. Motorola / blackberry has been building phones for decades and will destroy Apple.
Tesla is at least 10 years ahead of everyone else in Technology and integration. Fit and finish they will pass Tesla. Technology not so much.
Did Tesla deny you CCx options ?
Agreed.
Technology IS disruptive.
urbanscribe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:43 PM
  #56  
daveo4porsche
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
daveo4porsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 495
Default

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.
you'll need to expand on your joules argument - those joules are to do "what" over what period of time - if you're talking acceleration then yes a heavier object takes more energy to accelerate to a given velocity - but once at that velocity the energy required to maintain it only has to over come friction/and ongoing losses. If you measure kWh/mile EV's are 3 times more efficient in real everyday use vs. ICE cars and the kWh equivalents they consume to go the same distance. You state that the Polo is more efficient and yet given a 33 kWh budget (1 gallon in the tank) the polo will only go 24'ish miles - and the Ev with 33 kWh in a battery will go over 100 miles - how is the polo more efficient than the EV with the same amount of energy consumed to move it the documented distances?

you are also not accounting for the 40-60% recovery of the kinetic energy when the object slows down from the velocity to zero that happens with regenerative braking in all EV's- where as all that kinetic energy is lost in an ICE vehicle in friction braking…

you are correct energy can not be destroyed or created - basic thermodynamics/physics - I understand that - and accelerating heavier objects takes more energy - but once at a given velocity the inputs required to maintain that energy state are fractional.

your joules comment does not account for or address how EV's are able to go 3 times the distance not he same amount of input energy. And there is no reputable research that says burning gas in ICE is more efficient that simply using the same amount of fuel to create/distribute electricity.

and let's run your efficiency model for the EV in California where this is NO coal power source, 40% NG (60% efficient), 20% nuke (zero emission) and reminder renewables…still think the ICE is a better option? If so you're a lost cause that simply refused to admit we need the change.

also you're compare coal fired power for EV and gasoline which are two different fuels. according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

gasoline is 46.4 JM/kg and coal is 30 MJ/kg - or 50% less potential energy than gasoline for the same physical amount of input fuel - again not comparing apples to apples…and once again proving coal sucks, but we knew this already.
daveo4porsche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 05:59 PM
  #57  
daveo4porsche
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
daveo4porsche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 495
Default

I've owned 4 Teslas - and currently drive 2 (never more than 2 at once) - Tesla are great but have huge room for improvement - I for one am very very excited at the prospect of more choice/competiion in the EV market place. Credit to Tesla for getting us here and showing the world that whole EV thing can work, be fun, fast, and efficient, and most of all forward looking....but Tesla has massive room for improvement in many areas, and if other auto manufactures want to compete for my automobile $$$ they better offer me a compelling EV - because the days of ICE dominance have peaked and EV's are the growth path from this point forward - all we're arguing about is the slop of the curve, the trend is clear, but the slope is open to speculation…

and if Tesla's are as bad as some people in this forums think they are - it should be easy peasy for the existing manufactures to quickly dispatch Tesla to the first mover dust bin of history we'll see!

in any case it's an exciting time to be an auto enthusiasts…

and for the record we don' have to get rid of all ICE forms of transportation - there are applications/use cases for which EV and their foreseeable offspring will never match some of the more extreme capabilities of ICE"s - however if we can simply change the mix and only use ICE in use cases where their advantages are requirements (long distance rapid refueling for example) and use EV's for mundane daily chores it's win win win win

picture a world where the available supply of gasoline is being targeted/used in the applications its best suited to handle, and the stupid idle ICE engine in daily commute traffic is replaced with clean source electricity and EV's where zero emissions in congested high density areas is an improvement…

ICE's don't need to die, they just need to be more targeted in their use case so we maximize the benefit of using that particularly expensive form of fuel/transporation - and we can use EV where they are best suited - it would be a better world all around.

think of the "Mix" people, use the best tool for the job! Tesla Model S to drive to/from the track - mmmmmmm flat -6 NA 500 HP 9250 rpm ICE Monster to flog round the track ;-) burn baby burn!!! Can you say GT3 track toy - I knew you could!!!
daveo4porsche is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 06:20 PM
  #58  
urbanscribe
User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 145
Default

Come on. Admit you drop the kids off at school in an GT3, them sitting on pillows on the back shelf. That's the tool for the job!


Oh, and on the substance, agreed and well said.
urbanscribe is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 07:29 PM
  #59  
Cloudplay
User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 29
Default

Originally Posted by F1CrazyDriver View Post
That's what everyone said about Apple. Motorola / blackberry has been building phones for decades and will destroy Apple.
Tesla is at least 10 years ahead of everyone else in Technology and integration. Fit and finish they will pass Tesla. Technology not so much.
Did Tesla deny you CCx options ?
Tesla may have been ahead of everyone else by 10 years in 2010. I'll be looking for a new set of cars in 2019 - and right now I'd be much more inclined to go with a Mission E or I-Pace than a Model S or X. Maybe you have more insight into the Tesla pipeline, but neither the new roadster nor the semi-truck are on my shopping list. I have driven a Model S, and left convinced of the future of electric cars, but not so much of that of Tesla.
Cloudplay is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 07:57 PM
  #60  
Archimedes
Addict
Rennlist Member
 
Archimedes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: SF Bay Area
Posts: 7,296
Default

Originally Posted by F1CrazyDriver
That's what everyone said about Apple. Motorola / blackberry has been building phones for decades and will destroy Apple.
Tesla is at least 10 years ahead of everyone else in Technology and integration. Fit and finish they will pass Tesla. Technology not so much.
Did Tesla deny you CCx options ?
Nonsense. Ridiculous analogy not even remotely comparable. If you want a proper analogy, think Tesla is Lotus 123 and the rest of the market is Microsoft Excel.

Tesla's only advantage is/was first mover and the luxury of no competition. And that is all about to change.

Maybe Tesla can fall back on its solar business. Oh wait, that's cratering too...

Last edited by Archimedes; 03-07-2018 at 08:24 PM.
Archimedes is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Tesla existential threat?


Contact Us Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: