navitron
 
Renewable Energy and Sustainability Forum
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Anyone wishing to register as a new member on the forum is strongly recommended to use a "proper" email address - following recent spam/hack attempts on the forum, all security is set to "high", and "disposable" email addresses like Gmail, Yahoo and Hotmail tend to be viewed with suspicion, and the application rejected if there is any doubt whatsoever
 
Recent Articles: Navitron Partners With Solax to Help Create A More Sustainable Future | Navitron Calls for Increased Carbon Footprint Reduction In Light of Earth Overshoot Day | A plea from The David School - Issue 18
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Teslas >20% more efficient than iPace or eTron  (Read 3841 times)
knighty
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2799


« Reply #30 on: February 27, 2019, 01:12:26 PM »

I was disappointed to find that his battery packs were made by whacking a load of small batteries in a box. Seemed very crude...,but then understanding slowly dawned. Easy to make millions of them, good surface area to volume ratio, allowing heating and cooling. Simple design, very sophisticated management.

they've changed to a different size now too, they used 18650 cells at first because they were a standard shape/size (mostly used in laptop batteries I think)

18650 = 18mm diameter 65mm long

the new cells are 21mm diam x 70mm long.... which apparently fit together better/tighter so you get more kwh in the same volume


another benefit of lots of cells is if you have one bad/duff cell

google says 7104 cells in  model s, 16 series/parallel packs so... 444cells per pack

a dead cell in one pack only loses you 0.23% battery capacity... and you need two dead cells in the same pack before you lose any more capacity  (so one dead cell in every pack is still only 0.23% capacity loss)
Logged
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5115



« Reply #31 on: March 01, 2019, 08:20:48 AM »

Posting here as it the most current Tesla thread - Yesterday Tesla opened up the order system for the base TM3 the $35k model.

That might not sound cheap, but they are profitable, so mass produced BEV's are now proven to be possible and popular, watch out legacy car companies Omar Tesla is coming!
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712


« Reply #32 on: March 01, 2019, 04:22:00 PM »

Thanks Dan, I understood what they'd done was impressive, but wasn't sure if it was really, really impressive. No wonder the company has gone from 0% to around 65% of commercial space launch business in a decade (recent tweet from Elon - "SpaceX commercial launch market share went from 0% in 2010 to 65% in 2018.).
SpaceX, Blue Origin et al have been essentially buying market share by throwing money at the problem. SpaceX for instance has raised $2.4 Billion in the past 3 years, in addition to the money they're receiving for commercial launches. ULA, etc. are still using 50 year old designs, in large part because they don't think the market stacks up enough to justify the investment. Ariane are investing a bit (400 million from the industrial partners - I work for one of them in an unrelated role BTW - and the rest from various governments), but nowhere near as much. Essentially SpaceX et al believe that if they invest enough they can bring rocket prices down enough to grow the market sufficiently to get their investment back. As the cost of capital is very low at the moment, they're getting funding so far - but personally I'm struggling to see them getting that investment back. We'll see lots of cool technology and the cost of access to space coming down, but I would personally not invest in a company like SpaceX.

And on the BEV side have even impressed Munro (and pdf) with their motor technology. But Elon's tweet on Tesla's success (sister tweet to Space X success) now has him being investigated by the SEC (again).

He posted - "Tesla made 0 cars in 2011, but will make around 500k in 2019"

then corrected it 4hrs later with - "Meant to say annualized production rate at end of 2019 probably around 500k, ie 10k cars/week. Deliveries for year still estimated to be about 400k."

 .... even though the original tweet was after trading hours, the SEC are still 'doing him' for it.

The ironic thing though is that TM3 production has a broad range of estimates for 2019 and could hit 400,000, which would take Tesla to 500,000 vehicles anyway.
To be fair to the SEC, the "funding secured" tweet was seriously naughty: if true it would have meant the true value was at least $400/share, and anybody making investment decisions based on that might have got seriously burned. The agreement afterwards was essentially a slap on the wrist and an agreement to get the Tesla lawyers to look at all his tweets relevant to the market before publication. This was clearly not one of them - and out-of-hours trading happens enough that the SEC were quite right to take an interest. I doubt they'll do anything though.

I suspect the shorts are using, or should that be miss-using, the SEC and complaints process just to cause trouble and further their aims. Silly and sad.
I'm utterly baffled by the business model of those shorting Tesla - it's more like a religion than a financial decision. Under normal circumstances I could see Tesla stock being overvalued - it's priced as the most expensive car company in the world, IIRC, at a time when self-driving cars are likely to make the business of making cars a bad one to be in. However, at the moment there are short positions (i.e. people have borrowed and sold on Tesla stock, expecting to be able to buy it back cheaper later) on about 25% of the total stock. That's an awfully high percentage of the total being traded - Musk alone owns 20% of the total, for instance. That in turn means the price is being driven by how many people want to buy stock in order to short it, and makes the whole exercise more akin to chaos theory. flyingpig

So I watch Mr Musk's ideas quite closely.

I was disappointed to find that his battery packs were made by whacking a load of small batteries in a box. Seemed very crude...,but then understanding slowly dawned. Easy to make millions of them, good surface area to volume ratio, allowing heating and cooling. Simple design, very sophisticated management. This is exactly NOT what other EV companies are doing, most of them supplied by LG flat packs with much less  flexibility of design, heating and cooling abilities.
Not necessarily true - flat plates probably give you a better surface area to volume ratio (=cooling) than a cylinder does, and might stack a little bit better. More components (smaller cells) -> more assembly work and hence cost. LG et al aren't dummies - cylindrical batteries aren't exactly new technology after all - so it obviously makes sense for them. Too much isn't in the public domain here - the LG process might perhaps be hard to roll up into a cylinder like the Tesla cells, or conversely the Tesla cells might be limited by a particular choice of cooling architecture.
In the absence of sufficient information, it's very easy for the assumed superiority of a particular architecture to take hold. One of the biggest disappointments in engineering is when you hear a competitor has done something new and get all excited, thinking of the new and fun ways they might have done it. As soon as you see the part you generally realise it's a bit of a let-down and you could do better. That's been true everywhere I've worked, and I have no doubt it's true here.

Then there's the electric motor. With it's Halbach array magnets (not done normally, 'cause it's just too hard to do), it is way ahead of most other designs.
Strictly speaking, the problem isn't that it's hard but that it's expensive (fiddly). You've got lots more magnets, which have to be assembled into a really awkward layout - one that will fly apart and smash on you if you look at it funny. Either they've found a really clever way of doing it, have spent vast amounts on tooling, or have fallen for rule-of-cool. Personally I suspect the last two, but have very little to go on - Tesla have form for going for exciting but impractical designs, often with far too many parts (the infamous boot liner teardown) or overly complex tooling (the factory design with the silly conveyor belts).

Add these two together, miles ahead of competitors.
Thing is, there are areas that they're ahead which don't make the news and should. Battery chemistry is a good example - their batteries use far less cobalt than anybody else, and cobalt prices are both through the roof and badly affected by Trump's tariffs (we use a modest amount a year and our annual tariff bill is likely to be around 1m in 2019). Problem is you can't see it and AIUI it's shared IP with Panasonic, so nobody gets excited about it.

Posting here as it the most current Tesla thread - Yesterday Tesla opened up the order system for the base TM3 the $35k model.
That might not sound cheap, but they are profitable, so mass produced BEV's are now proven to be possible and popular, watch out legacy car companies Omar Tesla is coming!
Don't get too excited yet - Musk also stated that they were closing down their dealer network (Tesla-owned, not franchised) and shifting to internet-only sales at the same time as it was the only way they could afford to sell the $35k model. That suggests to me that their margins might be quite thin on it. They're retaining some locations as showrooms, but it is suggestive that real-life profit margins are thinner than suggested by the teardowns.
Logged
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5115



« Reply #33 on: March 02, 2019, 08:02:39 AM »

I'm utterly baffled by the business model of those shorting Tesla - it's more like a religion than a financial decision. Under normal circumstances I could see Tesla stock being overvalued - it's priced as the most expensive car company in the world, IIRC, at a time when self-driving cars are likely to make the business of making cars a bad one to be in. However, at the moment there are short positions (i.e. people have borrowed and sold on Tesla stock, expecting to be able to buy it back cheaper later) on about 25% of the total stock. That's an awfully high percentage of the total being traded - Musk alone owns 20% of the total, for instance. That in turn means the price is being driven by how many people want to buy stock in order to short it, and makes the whole exercise more akin to chaos theory. flyingpig

Tesla isn't (yet) the most expensive car company, it's roughly in joint 3rd place with four others (Honda, BMW, GM and Daimler), as share values vary, and these companies all sit around $50bn-$60bn, but well ahead are VW at around $80bn and Toyota at around $200bn.


Posting here as it the most current Tesla thread - Yesterday Tesla opened up the order system for the base TM3 the $35k model.
That might not sound cheap, but they are profitable, so mass produced BEV's are now proven to be possible and popular, watch out legacy car companies Omar Tesla is coming!
Don't get too excited yet - Musk also stated that they were closing down their dealer network (Tesla-owned, not franchised) and shifting to internet-only sales at the same time as it was the only way they could afford to sell the $35k model. That suggests to me that their margins might be quite thin on it. They're retaining some locations as showrooms, but it is suggestive that real-life profit margins are thinner than suggested by the teardowns.

You misunderstand, and I'm remaining very, very excited - Tesla have proven that BEV's:
- can be built economically, the TCO (total cost of ownership) of BEV's is now cheaper than that for ICE's
- have enough demand to be built and sold in significant numbers
- can be built profitably (regardless of how thin (or not)) those profits are.

This isn't about Tesla, it's about BEV's and the electrification of transport, a sector that previously looked hard to clean up / de-carbonize, but now is 'voluntarily' moving that way thanks to the efforts of Toyota (proving electric tech and batts in the hybrids), and Nissan and Renault in promoting small mass market BEV's, and Tesla proving that demand exists for full cost BEV's with profits.

Feel free to mock my enthusiasm (genuine offer, not argumentative, as I laugh at myself all the time about some of these issues), and point out that we are only at the start of a long road, but my excitement is based on the fact that we are now firmly on the BEV road, and nothing, nothing at all now, can get us back onto the ICE road, ironically, the war is over, whilst many, many battles are still to be raged!

I think we should all rejoice in the enormous environmental victory, even if it hasn't arrived yet, since it is inevitable and unstoppable now.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
dan_b
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4257


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 02, 2019, 08:53:00 AM »

Worth noting that this week has seen first full BEV model announcements from Honda, Peogeot, Seat and Volvo (as Polestar) all of which will hit the market in 2019, announcements from Porsche of a doubling of production volumes of their Taycan BEV plus announcement of a second full BEV in their lineup, that BEVs in China have grown to almost 10% of new car sales, and finally the availability of the $35k base model Tesla 3.

Quite a week in electric mobility
Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array:
2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

Mk1 ImmerSUN DHW diverter
4kW PowerVault Battery

Tesla Model 3 Long Range
offthegridandy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003



« Reply #35 on: March 02, 2019, 05:39:01 PM »

Hi M,  I fully agree with your rejoicing and as you say it's a long road yet.

Do we (nationally) have the generating capacity if there is say a 25% take up of EV's by 2025 for example? Or is there a serious brick in the road until generating capacity catches up with the increase demand from charging all these batteries?

Andy

Logged

8 KVA Lister TS2 Startamatic Genny
24 Volt 1000amp battery bank
Outback VFX3024
4.6 Kw PV array ground mounted
Outback Flexmax 80
2 X Flexmax 30 PV CC
2.5 Kw WT H Piggot design 4.5 Mtr Dia AC coupled
12 Mtr free standing Tower.
u/floor heating from oil boiler cross linked to 12 K wood stove
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5115



« Reply #36 on: March 02, 2019, 06:36:27 PM »

Hi M,  I fully agree with your rejoicing and as you say it's a long road yet.

Do we (nationally) have the generating capacity if there is say a 25% take up of EV's by 2025 for example? Or is there a serious brick in the road until generating capacity catches up with the increase demand from charging all these batteries?

Andy

Hiya Andy. Short answer yes, as we will have to. Whether because of economics or GHGe targets, or a bit of both, we will move to EV's anyway, so even if it was a big, big problem, we'd still have to do it.

Longer answer, the numbers aren't as scary as you might at first think. The UK has a car fleet (that includes SUV's etc etc, but not commercial vehicles) of about 30m vehicles, and we average about 7,900 miles pa. or 22miles per day. So at roughly 4 miles/kWh, we need 30m x 2,000kWh more (for cars). That's a gross figure of ~60TWh. We currently consume about 350TWh pa, so a gross increase of about 17%, (the net increase after refinery leccy reductions is perhaps only 10%.)

Assuming the bulk of charging takes place at night, with some during the day (when parked up for work), then we see, based on the gross 60TWh figure, an average increase in demand of around 14GW across the 12hrs from 8pm to 8am, taking nightime demand up to daytime levels, but still below peak demand (evening) GW's.

I'm not scared about the evening peak as I suspect for every car that has to charge then, there will be many, many cars plugged in ready for a cheap night charge, but offering V2G leccy to earn peak prices. In fact, I personally believe that V2G will reduce evening peaks. Looking at this logically, for every million home or business, or car batteries providing the home (not exporting to the grid) with 1kW of supply during the evening peak, we'll see peak demand on the grid reduced by 1GW. 10m such stationary or car batts would wipe out the peak part of the evening peak. So factor in potentially more batts, more KW's available, and those willing to provide even more to export (not just offset), and I suspect the peak is OK.

Next, (bet you wish you'd never asked) forgetting the peak, what about household draw, well some houses will be charging at 2-7kW, whilst others won't need to as a 40-60kWh battery will cover, on average 7-11 days. So back to 7,900 miles, let's say two cars per home (per home that can charge on site*) then the nightime increase in demand will be approx ((7,900miles x 2) / (4miles/kWh x 365 days)) / 12hrs = 900W. So the grid will see an increase in demand of approx 0.9kW from around 15m EV households - that's a bit like switching on two old TV's and a handful of 100W incandescant lamps in each household, something the grid coped with for decades.

*Other solutions will be street side chargers, or perhaps a cheap/free 7kW charge at the supermarket to attract customers like they currently do with money off petrol deals. I think Tesco is already offering something like this, with charges for higher kW rates. In fact, anywhere where you park for an hour or so (gym, cinema etc etc) will probably offer facilities. Plus workplace charging, carparks in general, etc etc..

Obviously for a 25% take up, just divide my figures by 4. So that average increase in demand at night of 14GW becomes 3.5GW, and we currently have a gas fleet of around 25GW, most of which isn't generating at night, and we can expect it to drop lower as more and more wind farms become operational. If the net figure (after refinery savings) is closer to 35TWh pa, than 60TWh, then that 25% takeup might only mean a nighttime increase in demand of around 2GW.

So, I suspect we already have the generating capacity to meet the demand from a 100% BEV car fleet today, so long as we don't charge during the evening peak, and similarly, we already have the grid to cope, both the HV and LV sides.

Time wise for a full BEV car fleet, I'd say 100% BEV sales in 10yrs is probably far too optimistic, but what the hell, then another 10-15yrs for the vast majority of ICE vehicles to be retired, so we have 20+yrs for the changeover, which seems fine if we could cope today, just about, on a wing and a prayer.

Regarding the true figure, which adds in commercial vehicles and space heating, and I assume upgrading the grid to cope with supply will be necessary, but can be done steadily over 30yrs.

I simply have no issues regarding supply, as that's just an economics issue, more demand will encourage more supply, and if companies can generate and sell leccy at a profit, then they will, and the UK has no issues with volume, thanks to RE, but does of course have issues with intermittency, which I believe can be met with interday battery storage, and longer term storage such as bio-gas, CAES, LAES etc, plus of course FF gas for the extreme exceptions, but on an annual basis, very little.

I also don't expect this to impact our decarbonisation of leccy since we are rolling out nearly 3%pa, and I suspect BEV's will only add 3% in the next 10yrs even at optimistic growth levels - let's say 10% of sales this year, 20% next year, 30% year after till 100% in year 10, that gives us a total of 550% (of a years sales) across the 10yrs, so 5.5yrs of car sales being BEV's on the road, which will be about 1/3 of the car fleet assuming a 15yr life expectancy for ICE's(?), so 1/3rd of my total 10% increase figure calculated earlier, so around +3.3% leccy demand after 10yrs, v's a 3%RE rollout each year (fingers crossed).


Hope this all makes sense, it is of course only my opinion, but hopefully you can see that the impact in terms of annual increase (+10% leccy for cars) is quite small, and the increase on generating capacity and the grid is also small and manageable.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2019, 06:41:14 PM by M » Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
dan_b
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4257


WWW
« Reply #37 on: March 02, 2019, 07:19:33 PM »

The averages do hide a bit of a capacity problem though during the dark wind-free nights in winter when we have seen the UK grid trying to find electrons down the back of the sofa - that part of our generation equation will need to be fixed
Logged

3.06kWp SolarEdge system with a split array:
2.18kWp 10x South facing, plus 4x West facing 880W

Mk1 ImmerSUN DHW diverter
4kW PowerVault Battery

Tesla Model 3 Long Range
HalcyonRichard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #38 on: March 02, 2019, 07:48:33 PM »

With currently available  BEV's heading towards  battery capacities of over 50 kWh and using 4-5 kWh on average per day. Then most could easily forgo a couple of days charging if the right incentives were in place. I would reckon in the near future with Vehicle To Grid and flexible charging EV's will be a big part of the solution as opposed to a problem for the grid.

Richard
Logged

Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools - Richard Burton upon Trent
offthegridandy
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1003



« Reply #39 on: March 02, 2019, 08:04:26 PM »

Thank you M for your detailed  thoughts.

Dan, that's the part of the equation that worries me. If we end up burning more fossil fuel to power these EV's then we aren't truly winning.

 As a business we are very small but we employ up to 7 people and have 7 commercial vehicles. I would love to be able to use EV's and can see the day when suitable vehicles are available, but being off grid for me, creates challenges to be able to charge this number of vehicles.
Logged

8 KVA Lister TS2 Startamatic Genny
24 Volt 1000amp battery bank
Outback VFX3024
4.6 Kw PV array ground mounted
Outback Flexmax 80
2 X Flexmax 30 PV CC
2.5 Kw WT H Piggot design 4.5 Mtr Dia AC coupled
12 Mtr free standing Tower.
u/floor heating from oil boiler cross linked to 12 K wood stove
desperate
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3472


Backache stuff!!


WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 02, 2019, 08:36:44 PM »

Mart said:-
I think we should all rejoice in the enormous environmental victory, even if it hasn't arrived yet, since it is inevitable and unstoppable now.

ha ha, can I have some of what you're smoking...........

meantime back in the real world       https://www.co2.earth/     it's getting worse wackoold

sure celebrate the diddly bits of technology that will make a  slight improvement , but THE only number that matters is 410ppm, when that starts going down we'll all be fried probably.

Desp
Logged

www.jandhbuilders.co.uk

still a crazy old duffer!
HalcyonRichard
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 744


« Reply #41 on: March 02, 2019, 09:17:52 PM »

Thank you M for your detailed  thoughts.

Dan, that's the part of the equation that worries me. If we end up burning more fossil fuel to power these EV's then we aren't truly winning.

 As a business we are very small but we employ up to 7 people and have 7 commercial vehicles. I would love to be able to use EV's and can see the day when suitable vehicles are available, but being off grid for me, creates challenges to be able to charge this number of vehicles.

How are you fueling the seven vehicles at the present. Where do the 7 people live and could they charge them overnight ? Far better to use the grid mix we have today than use petrol or diesel in the vehicles. The Technology in the next couple of years will have 200 mile range and be able to charge in 10 minutes at 350 kW chargers. Most current charginng networks are using renewable energy for their chargers.

Richard
Logged

Laws are for the guidance of wise men and the obeyance of fools - Richard Burton upon Trent
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5115



« Reply #42 on: March 03, 2019, 07:16:08 AM »

Thank you M for your detailed  thoughts.

Dan, that's the part of the equation that worries me. If we end up burning more fossil fuel to power these EV's then we aren't truly winning.

 As a business we are very small but we employ up to 7 people and have 7 commercial vehicles. I would love to be able to use EV's and can see the day when suitable vehicles are available, but being off grid for me, creates challenges to be able to charge this number of vehicles.

Analysis that was done last year, showed that even in Poland where the majority of leccy comes from coal, EV's were still better. What's important to note is that an EV is incredibly efficient at getting and using around 80% of the energy from the leccy that starts its journey across the grid, plus EV's have re-gen braking. Whereas a petrol car only gets about 25% of the energy out of the petrol for movement, the rest is wasted as noise, heat and inefficiently burnt, or powering the car when it's not in the tiny torque sweet spot for each chosen gear.

Also, and this is really important, FF powerstations don't have their exhausts emitting materials in our town centers.

So, even if all the leccy for all the EV's came from UK gas generation, it would still be far cleaner and lower GHGe. But in reality, we are rolling out RE generation about 10x faster than my overly optimistic EV figures given earlier, and there's nothing stopping us rolling out RE even faster if we want.

Lastly, if at times we have to run the whole gas fleet flat out due to a shortage of RE gen (and storage) at that point in time, then that's OK, so long as the annual average of FF consumption keeps declining, and to do that we have to roll out more RE, and get more RE generation, whilst considering FF's (our back up gennie) but not getting too scared about a one day loss, when focus should remain on the overall 'average' win.
Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
M
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5115



« Reply #43 on: March 03, 2019, 07:31:22 AM »

Mart said:-
I think we should all rejoice in the enormous environmental victory, even if it hasn't arrived yet, since it is inevitable and unstoppable now.

ha ha, can I have some of what you're smoking...........

meantime back in the real world       https://www.co2.earth/     it's getting worse wackoold

sure celebrate the diddly bits of technology that will make a  slight improvement , but THE only number that matters is 410ppm, when that starts going down we'll all be fried probably.

Desp

Sorry Desp but you've totally missed the point I'm making. We aren't talking about diddly bits of technology here, we are talking about de-carbonising the whole transport sector. Surely you can see that as a huge win, especially since a decade ago we thought this was going to be extremely difficult, and could only be hopeful of a BEV solution.

Now, that solution has already arrived, since BEV's are now available that are cheaper (in TCO terms), are popular and in demand, and are profitable. The profitable part, whilst admittedly balancing on a knife edge, is incredibly important since that allows us to move to BEV's - without a company being willing to make them (profitability) we won't get them, or large subsidies will have to be offered, for ever, by nation governments.

So, I'm not smoking anything, I believe what I've posted to be true and reasonable, and when you step back and have a look, that means that the enormous problem of transportation emissions is now solveable and economic.

So what did I say, I said that we should rejoice in the enormous environmental victory, whilst acknowledging that it hadn't yet arrived, but that it was now inevitable and unstoppable. To be clear, there was a big problem, with no actual solution (just the promising development of BEV's). Now the practical solution has arrived, and will be adopted, so this part of the problem will be solved by a natural transition to BEV's, even if some folk don't like the idea, or don't want to. ICE's are dead, they just don't know it yet.

That might sound a bit OTT, but I believe it's 100% correct. If it's not then you need to explain or suggest what will put the BEV gennie back in the bottle.

If you don't see why that's a huge win, nor how that fits in with your (and mine) primary concern about CO2ppm's and GHGe's, then you've missed my point completely and are being blinded by the problem, and missing the solution. Have a day off from worrying, we've got less than 12yrs now to worry ourselves sick, and just enjoy the fact that one of the biggest problems now has a solution, an unstoppable solution.  Cool

Edit - And just to be clear, because I'm trying to cover all bases here as I simply can't work out what you disagree with here - I'm not saying the planet is saved, I'm not saying CO2/GHGe are solved, I'm not saying relax we've won. I'm referring just to the transport sector, and the arrival now of a solution, and an unstoppable transition to leccy. Whilst not addressing the leccy delivery part in entirety, I have touched upon it, and I assume we all accept that that sector can be de-carbonised even if it grows larger to power the electrification of other sectors.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2019, 07:39:26 AM by M » Logged

Just call me Mart.     Cardiff: 5.58kWp PV - (3.58kWp SE3500 + 2kWp SE2200 WNW)
pdf27
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1712


« Reply #44 on: March 03, 2019, 07:34:58 AM »

You misunderstand, and I'm remaining very, very excited - Tesla have proven that BEV's:
- can be built economically, the TCO (total cost of ownership) of BEV's is now cheaper than that for ICE's
- have enough demand to be built and sold in significant numbers
- can be built profitably (regardless of how thin (or not)) those profits are.

This isn't about Tesla, it's about BEV's and the electrification of transport, a sector that previously looked hard to clean up / de-carbonize, but now is 'voluntarily' moving that way thanks to the efforts of Toyota (proving electric tech and batts in the hybrids), and Nissan and Renault in promoting small mass market BEV's, and Tesla proving that demand exists for full cost BEV's with profits.

Feel free to mock my enthusiasm (genuine offer, not argumentative, as I laugh at myself all the time about some of these issues), and point out that we are only at the start of a long road, but my excitement is based on the fact that we are now firmly on the BEV road, and nothing, nothing at all now, can get us back onto the ICE road, ironically, the war is over, whilst many, many battles are still to be raged!

I think we should all rejoice in the enormous environmental victory, even if it hasn't arrived yet, since it is inevitable and unstoppable now.
I'm fine with all that - I just get grumpy when Tesla are quoted due to the vast numbers of Teslavangelists out there spewing cult-like rubbish. Remember the stone age didn't end because we ran out of stone, but because we discovered something better - and the oil age will be the same. In this case it's mostly batteries, largely driven by the improvements coming out of smart phone and laptop development. Throw in power electronics (Si, SiC, GaN, etc.) allowing the use of something other than brushed DC motors and you've got all the ingredients.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Simple Audio Video Embedder
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!