The inconvenient truth about Tesla’s Semi

[ciaranob]

I guess from my perspective, the battery is simply another 'fuel' tank and the cost to get the E (generation and transmission) to the EV (together will life cycle disposal issues) via infrastructure is still there, just different - I do believe that overall the environmental impact is still net positive in regard emissions but both technologies still have too big a carbon footprint - we will be in this mixed transition phase for a while yet - small step changes.

Originally Posted by jmg

I would say, again, that the EV is merely a new way to deliver energy to the wheels without an on board fuel tank. Whatever that technology may be in the future that replaces fossil fuel, generating it at strategic locations and delivery to the customer without having to transport solid, liquid, or gas (as in air) seems more efficient.

[CO_Steve]

Originally Posted by jmg

I would say, again, that the EV is merely a new way to deliver energy to the wheels without an on board fuel tank. Whatever that technology may be in the future that replaces fossil fuel, generating it at strategic locations and delivery to the customer without having to transport solid, liquid, or gas (as in air) seems more efficient.

Some completely back of the envelope calculations:

Fuel at power source-> truck-> car -> motion.
Say the truck averages 500 miles per haul @ 5mpg = 100 gals lost out of 10k gallons delivered = 99% efficient. Double it to be conservative.
Cars internal combustion engine maybe 20% efficient.
Total 19% efficient.

Fuel at source->power plant->transmission lines->charge battery-> battery drives wheels.

From estimates I can find:
Power plant efficiency 35%
Transmission efficiency 92%
Battery charging efficiency 80%
Electric motor efficiency - depends on load, average 60% (generous)
.35x.92x.8x.6=15%

19>15 and we already have everything in place.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by ciaranob

I guess from my perspective, the battery is simply another 'fuel' tank and the cost to get the E (generation and transmission) to the EV (together will life cycle disposal issues) via infrastructure is still there, just different - I do believe that overall the environmental impact is still net positive in regard emissions but both technologies still have too big a carbon footprint - we will be in this mixed transition phase for a while yet - small step changes.

That's exactly how I see it, but with the added benefit of not having to burn the fuel. It's already been converted to usable energy for the car.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by CO_Steve

Some completely back of the envelope calculations:

Fuel at power source-> truck-> car -> motion.
Say the truck averages 500 miles per haul @ 5mpg = 100 gals lost out of 10k gallons delivered = 99% efficient. Double it to be conservative.
Cars internal combustion engine maybe 20% efficient.
Total 19% efficient.

Fuel at source->power plant->transmission lines->charge battery-> battery drives wheels.

From estimates I can find:
Power plant efficiency 35%
Transmission efficiency 92%
Battery charging efficiency 80%
Electric motor efficiency - depends on load, average 60% (generous)
.35x.92x.8x.6=15%

19>15 and we already have everything in place.

I'm not sure how accurate your numbers are but it won't matter when accessible fossil fuels will be GONE and we are forced to reply on renewables like solar, wind, hydro, or even nuclear. So unless you can put a super efficient windmill on your roof, there is no way to get harness those type of power source on your car... unless you do it elsewhere and then store that power in your car in a battery. Sound familiar? It's the EV, and it's got an intrinsic adapter on it that allows us to use whatever power source we put into the grid.

[CO_Steve]

But we're not allowed to build dams or nukes and the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. 40 years ago the end of available oil was right around the corner, especially in this country. Now we're a huge exporter with massive new supplies. It won't make sense someday but right now don't say you should buy an electric car because it's more efficient because it's not. Your Tesla is coal powered.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by jmg

I'm not sure how accurate your numbers are but it won't matter when accessible fossil fuels will be GONE and we are forced to reply on renewables like solar, wind, hydro, or even nuclear. So unless you can put a super efficient windmill on your roof, there is no way to get harness those type of power source on your car... unless you do it elsewhere and then store that power in your car in a battery. Sound familiar? It's the EV, and it's got an intrinsic adapter on it that allows us to use whatever power source we put into the grid.

Just curious if you've seen any credible studies claiming natural gas and/or crude will be dried up within any period of time that matters to those currently alive?

I just finished Steve Coll's excellent book on Exxon and even the most pessimistic studies, including comical growth in demand from China and India, concede that anything under 100 years out is unlikely at best.

It's all well and good to look for alternatives, but so many manufactured goods are entirely dependent on petrochemicals that you're not going to mic drop your way out of our dependency on them, Musk or not.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by CO_Steve

But we're not allowed to build dams or nukes and the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. 40 years ago the end of available oil was right around the corner, especially in this country. Now we're a huge exporter with massive new supplies. It won't make sense someday but right now don't say you should buy an electric car because it's more efficient because it's not. Your Tesla is coal powered.

Congratulations, you are correct about exactly zero of the fifty states.

https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_s...sum_ex_tot.pdf

Oops, mea culpa. That's in dollars. Looks like in actual BTU's, if you're in Wyoming or West Virginia, your Tesla is indeed largely powered by coal, provided you don't have solar panels.
https://www.eia.gov/state/seds/sep_prod/pdf/P5.pdf

Here in Texas, 4% of our power is from coal, if you conveniently ignore how much of it is mined here and sold to other states.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Just curious if you've seen any credible studies claiming natural gas and/or crude will be dried up within any period of time that matters to those currently alive?

I just finished Steve Coll's excellent book on Exxon and even the most pessimistic studies, including comical growth in demand from China and India, concede that anything under 100 years out is unlikely at best.

It's all well and good to look for alternatives, but so many manufactured goods are entirely dependent on petrochemicals that you're not going to mic drop your way out of our dependency on them, Musk or not.

200 years, not 100. Both numbers are alarmingly close considering how many millions and millions of years it took for those fossil fuels to form naturally, and the blink of an eye we've been using them up.

And I wouldn't be naive to think that it would be a "mic drop". It's going to be a long process that we might not see in our lifetime. However, the rose colored glasses need to come off at some point.

Does it matter to those that are currently alive? It doesn't matter if the highest priority in the universe is me and no one else, alive, dead, or soon to be alive matters compared to MY interests and what I have to gain or lose. Fortunately for everyone else in the world, we all don't think that way, what a fucked up place this would be if we did.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by jmg

200 years, not 100. Both numbers are alarmingly close considering how many millions and millions of years it took for those fossil fuels to form naturally, and the blink of an eye we've been using them up.

And I wouldn't be naive to think that it would be a "mic drop". It's going to be a long process that we might not see in our lifetime. However, the rose colored glasses need to come off at some point.

Does it matter to those that are currently alive? It doesn't matter if the highest priority in the universe is me and no one else, alive, dead, or soon to be alive matters compared to MY interests and what I have to gain or lose. Fortunately for everyone else in the world, we all don't think that way, what a fucked up place this would be if we did.

Oh come on, without aggressive or global laws, in my lifetime, we've got air conditioners that are massively more efficient, cars release a fraction of the total pollutants while being more efficient even on stupid ethanol fuel, jets are hugely more efficient, we don't even have a space program and we've filled massive landfills with recyclables that will probably never be able to be processed.

This shouldn't be all doom and gloom. Look at your available options, buy what you're comfortable with and enjoy it. I've got a house with all LED lights, smart thermostats and I pay a premium to subsidize my state's wind program. But I also take my cars to the track and occasionally drive in a manner that might offend the average Prius driver.

Hell, our next car was going to be a Model 3, but that's clearly not happening so an i3 or plug in hybrid of some sort are the current leaders. But even still, all the plastics in those cars, the fluids to make the brakes work and most of the energy to make the physical car are still going to come from petrochemicals.

[wdb]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

cars release a fraction of the total pollutants while being more efficient even on stupid ethanol fuel

I was reminded of the articles from the 1990's showing that the exhaust coming out of certain PZEV vehicles (Volvo, Subaru are the ones I remember) was cleaner than the air going into the intake, at certain times, on LA freeways. Air quality really has come a long way. ICE efficiency too.

[bimmer456]

The Mega chargers are solar powered. The semi has air brakes so those make noise I think I heard them set the e brake when they parked and it made that air sound.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by CO_Steve

But we're not allowed to build dams or nukes and the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow.

Get creative. The wind is always blowing somewhere. Water is constantly flowing, the amount of sun in the day depends on the season and your latitude. You know... use science and common sense.

Originally Posted by CO_Steve

40 years ago the end of available oil was right around the corner, especially in this country. Now we're a huge exporter with massive new supplies.

The ability to get it out of the ground faster and more efficiently does not magically make more oil in the ground. It's finite.

Originally Posted by CO_Steve

It won't make sense someday but right now don't say you should buy an electric car because it's more efficient because it's not. Your Tesla is coal powered.

You are arguing against an argument that I am not making. Besides, it's not completely coal powered:



So, a Tesla is only 30% coal powered. Overall that's 64% fossil fuel driven. That's in contrast to the ICE, which is 10% fossil fuel driven.

So I'll repeat AGAIN the advantages of the EV, which is that it has an intrinsic advantage in that it will accept power from the grid, which can be sourced by any way we see fit. Hopefully in the future, it can be more skewed towards clean renewable sources than it is today. An ICE, however, only takes gasoline or diesel.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

Oh come on, without aggressive or global laws, in my lifetime, we've got air conditioners that are massively more efficient, cars release a fraction of the total pollutants while being more efficient even on stupid ethanol fuel, jets are hugely more efficient, we don't even have a space program and we've filled massive landfills with recyclables that will probably never be able to be processed.

This shouldn't be all doom and gloom. Look at your available options, buy what you're comfortable with and enjoy it.

I think you are reading more into my posts than you should be, because nowhere have I proclaimed "doom and gloom", nowhere have I said that we need "aggressive or global laws", nowhere have I said that we haven't gotten more efficient. What I have said is that the EV is basically a better delivery system of power, which can come from more varied sources that the ICE, which is purely fossil fuel based.

Originally Posted by Red Bread

But I also take my cars to the track and occasionally drive in a manner that might offend the average Prius driver.

I think you've misunderstood me to be some hippy tree hugging prius driver. I assure you, I am not. I have a F80 M3 that I'd much rather drive at 100mph than my i3 at 65mph. I can both be in favor of the EV movement, and still enjoy ICE cars. I think my biggest problem with the black and white aspects of the ICE vs EV debate is when EV skeptics think the EV is a total waste of time and money and parrot the same arguments that they find on google to argue against it. I'm not saying that this description fits you, by the way.

Originally Posted by Red Bread

all the plastics in those cars, the fluids to make the brakes work and most of the energy to make the physical car are still going to come from petrochemicals.

I'm sorry, I'm missing something. I'm honestly not sure what your argument is or why you are bringing up how many things petrochemicals play a role in. It seems to me, building up how much more we use for more things other than cars would actually be an argument FOR more widespread use of renewables to power the grid that we can charge EVs on so that we can maintain our levels of consuming and producing things that cannot be powered by sources outside of fossil fuels.

[Red Bread]

We get lots of ancillary benefits from the gas/diesel/jet fuel/bunker fuel market that make possible lots of other manufactured goods. With a diminished market for fuels, plastics, styrofoam and lots of manufactured goods would potentially be more expensive. Just magically flipping an EV switch doesn't do away with our demand for all those ancillary goods, but substantially decreasing demand for the primary liquids would absolutely increase pricing for the others.

Part of my paycheck comes from biodiesel. It's pretty cool stuff, burned in (coal and other) mines, the exhaust is non lethal and it works in existing machinery. It's also a market that EV's excel at. Alternative power sources are certainly coming, whether fools look for clean coal or think that petroleum is unlimited. But we're also wildly dependent on petrochemicals at present.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

With a diminished market for fuels, plastics, styrofoam and lots of manufactured goods would potentially be more expensive. Just magically flipping an EV switch doesn't do away with our demand for all those ancillary goods, but substantially decreasing demand for the primary liquids would absolutely increase pricing for the others.

If this were to happen, the market will adjust IMHO. Price fluctuations should be little concern to the overall benefit of exploring alternative energy sources. Right now our market is geared for what we have. It will adjust to what it will become. Profit is a universal motive.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by jmg

If this were to happen, the market will adjust IMHO. Price fluctuations should be little concern to the overall benefit of exploring alternative energy sources. Right now our market is geared for what we have. It will adjust to what it will become. Profit is a universal motive.

This is like arguing that we should have high speed rail. With the financial and lobbying power of the airlines, we never will. And airlines are a little speck of sand compared to Exxon, Conoco and Chevron.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by CO_Steve

Some completely back of the envelope calculations:

Fuel at power source-> truck-> car -> motion.
Say the truck averages 500 miles per haul @ 5mpg = 100 gals lost out of 10k gallons delivered = 99% efficient. Double it to be conservative.
Cars internal combustion engine maybe 20% efficient.
Total 19% efficient.

Fuel at source->power plant->transmission lines->charge battery-> battery drives wheels.

From estimates I can find:
Power plant efficiency 35%
Transmission efficiency 92%
Battery charging efficiency 80%
Electric motor efficiency - depends on load, average 60% (generous)
.35x.92x.8x.6=15%

19>15 and we already have everything in place.

Naw, many cities are using gas turbines now, some above 65% efficiency. Look up the technology. Nuclear is horridly inefficient, due to the extreme amount of infrastructure it takes to make the plant, it takes an extreme amount of money and has not turned out to be more efficient or cheaper in many cases, hence the popularity of renewable and gas turbine power generation.

[ShocknAwe]

Love it when people quote money savings in terms of fuel not purchased for EVs. Where do you think the power to charge the battery comes from exactly? It's not free.

[xQx]

Originally Posted by ShocknAwe

Love it when people quote money savings in terms of fuel not purchased for EVs. Where do you think the power to charge the battery comes from exactly? It's not free.

There's a big difference here between environmental cost and monetary cost. If I fill the car using 100% renewable energy its environmental cost is much lower. If I fill the car using brown coal, it's higher than diesel.

But purely in terms of monetary cost, it's not free, but it's much cheaper.

Sorry for the metric unit:

Assume an average of 8L per 100km and $1 per litre of gas = $8 per 100km.

Assume the Tesla gets 335km from 60kWh and you pay $0.25c per kWh = $1.39 per 100km.

So, depending on mileage, gas prices and energy prices, you can expect your Tesla to cost between 1/4 and 1/8th of the price of gas per fill.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by Red Bread

This is like arguing that we should have high speed rail. With the financial and lobbying power of the airlines, we never will. And airlines are a little speck of sand compared to Exxon, Conoco and Chevron.

But we SHOULD have a high speed rail. Just because it's hard or seems impossible doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

[jmg]

Originally Posted by ShocknAwe

Love it when people quote money savings in terms of fuel not purchased for EVs. Where do you think the power to charge the battery comes from exactly? It's not free.

Who would lease a $52k commuter car and not do the cost savings homework? Come on, give us some more credit.



I've calculated it based on peak hours charging for the sake of being extra critical.

My i3 gets 4.3mile/kWh real world. My energy bill states $0.16729/kWh delivery and $0.07477/kWh Generation.
Thats a total of $0.24206/kWh.
Cost per mile is: $0.05629302326 or $0.06.

My M3 gets 21.5 real world MPG. Price of premium is $3.35/gal
Cost per mile is: $0.16.

So you can see, I'm saving at least $0.10 a mile. At 10k miles a year, that's $1000 a year.

BUT, it get's better. You see, the i3 comes with 3 years FREE CHARGING. I charge at work so I only have to pay for about half my commute. So I'm only paying $0.03/mile. Im actually saving $900/year. If I really wanted to, I could just not plug in at home and pay $0.00/mile for my i3, but I like the piece of mind of having a fully charged car in the morning. Call me OCD.

[Red Bread]

Originally Posted by jmg

But we SHOULD have a high speed rail. Just because it's hard or seems impossible doesn't mean it shouldn't happen.

I don't disagree. But that would require a government with backbone that wasn't owned by PACs.