betty boop Posted July 8, 2016 Author Posted July 8, 2016 I was doing a bit of reading on emissions WRT electric versus petrol emissions and the consensus seemed to be that: If your electricity is generated via oil, then a petrol powered car that does better than 7.5l/100km produces less emissions If your electricity is generated via black coal, then a petrol powered car that does better than 9.5l/100km produces less emissions If your electricity is generated via brown coal (90% of Victorian electricity), then a petrol powered car that does better than 11.5l/100km produces less emissions Couldn't find natural gas, and obviously solar, wind and hydro are 'once only' emission producers. Of course, there's the advertising spiel about carbon offset - which essentially means you only have to put up with the pollution now (and for 15 years) until the trees become big enough to do something about it. If this was legit, then they'd all be planting hemp, which can clean the air faster than a full sized trees (and it has side benefits). thanks for posting that. I have been suggesting this in posts for a while now ! our two cars to put in perspective....our little budget run about does about 5L/100 and our "family car" about 8.5L/100 on average ! my previous turbo hot hatches have owned could easily achieve that or better .... could certainly cruise at around 6L/100 and ofcourse average just depended how hard drove them but never ever saw anything over 10L/100. petrol cars have come a long long way ! and certainly I think its a bit false sense of green e.g. where we are in brown coal victoria ! re carbon offset...dont get me started .... I worked for a very large multinational...who looked at promoting one of their products as a test case .... as being carbon neutral... e.g. everything in its making offset...well guess what they soon with a lot of research came to realise what a farce all that is and with all the BS that goes on with the schemes etc, plus all the rubbery figures. they ended up still producing the product but without the claims.... their key competitor who got wind up early and was on a parallel path ended up releasing a product with claims...and there was much egg on face with that competitor having to do a lot of back pedalling when their claims came under scrutiny..you wont find the competitors product with those claims on the market anymore... these are HUGE multinationals with massive resources backing...I for one anytime see anything on any claims of offset...read them with a great degree of scepticism and certainly wont support any such scheme if have the chance. 1
ufo Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 thanks for posting that. I have been suggesting this in posts for a while now ! our two cars to put in perspective....our little budget run about does about 5L/100 and our "family car" about 8.5L/100 on average ! my previous turbo hot hatches have owned could easily achieve that or better .... could certainly cruise at around 6L/100 and ofcourse average just depended how hard drove them but never ever saw anything over 10L/100. petrol cars have come a long long way ! and certainly I think its a bit false sense of green e.g. where we are in brown coal victoria ! re carbon offset...dont get me started .... I worked for a very large multinational...who looked at promoting one of their products as a test case .... as being carbon neutral... e.g. everything in its making offset...well guess what they soon with a lot of research came to realise what a farce all that is and with all the BS that goes on with the schemes etc, plus all the rubbery figures. they ended up still producing the product but wiht the claims.... their key competitor who got wind up early and was on a parallel path ended up releasing a product with claims...and there was much egg on face with that competitor having to do a lot of back pedalling when their claims came under scrutiny..you wont find the competitors product with those claims on the market anymore... these are HUGE multinationals with massive resources backing...I for one anytime see anything on any claims of offset...read them with a great degree of scepticism and certainly wont support any such scheme if have the chance. +1
Cloth Ears Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 thanks for posting that. I have been suggesting this in posts for a while now ! our two cars to put in perspective....our little budget run about does about 5L/100 and our "family car" about 8.5L/100 on average ! my previous turbo hot hatches have owned could easily achieve that or better .... could certainly cruise at around 6L/100 and ofcourse average just depended how hard drove them but never ever saw anything over 10L/100. petrol cars have come a long long way ! and certainly I think its a bit false sense of green e.g. where we are in brown coal victoria ! re carbon offset...dont get me started .... I worked for a very large multinational...who looked at promoting one of their products as a test case .... as being carbon neutral... e.g. everything in its making offset...well guess what they soon with a lot of research came to realise what a farce all that is and with all the BS that goes on with the schemes etc, plus all the rubbery figures. they ended up still producing the product but without the claims.... their key competitor who got wind up early and was on a parallel path ended up releasing a product with claims...and there was much egg on face with that competitor having to do a lot of back pedalling when their claims came under scrutiny..you wont find the competitors product with those claims on the market anymore... these are HUGE multinationals with massive resources backing...I for one anytime see anything on any claims of offset...read them with a great degree of scepticism and certainly wont support any such scheme if have the chance. However, I look forward to the time when I'll be happy to buy electric, as: At home I can charge it from my solar system I can get 1000k's on a single charge (at the moment, I believe a Tesla can get 500k's on a 92kwh charge) I am able to locate other chargers that are emission neutral Not that I said "emission neutral", not "carbon neutral". Particulate emissions are at least as much to blame for short-term heating cooling of the globe and certainly are the major cause of lung problems. Not as bad over here as it is in China and other developing nations (or in the UK/US in the 19th/early 20th centuries). But still not good, and probably worse considering what is being emitted compared to back then. 1
Guest rmpfyf Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Fleet charge scheduling works very well to get more than one car charged off a limited line. I was doing a bit of reading on emissions WRT electric versus petrol emissions and the consensus seemed to be that: If your electricity is generated via oil, then a petrol powered car that does better than 7.5l/100km produces less emissions If your electricity is generated via black coal, then a petrol powered car that does better than 9.5l/100km produces less emissions If your electricity is generated via brown coal (90% of Victorian electricity), then a petrol powered car that does better than 11.5l/100km produces less emission Not quite. My Volt regularly averages 70km per full charge (10.4kWh), in winter a bit lower and in summer up to 75km. So that's 0.149kWh/km. Current VIC grid carbon intensity is 1.195kgCO2/kWh. So the Volt is effectively at 178gCO2e/km. That's around 7.7L/100km real world. A car that does 7.7L/100km runs around 6-6.5L/100km nameplate typically. VIC is a very bad example, and in other states you're doing much better. You can get granular with then when when you charge (AEMO has the data you need), and smaller EVs fare better. A better CO2e argument concerns the embedded carbon in making the car, which is typically higher than a petrol/diesel equivalent. A bit like suggesting a Hybrid Camry is an excellent car on tailpipe CO2 (and it is) but embedded CO2e in building it is greater than the ICE variant.
Cloth Ears Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 Fleet charge scheduling works very well to get more than one car charged off a limited line. Not quite. My Volt regularly averages 70km per full charge (10.4kWh), in winter a bit lower and in summer up to 75km. So that's 0.149kWh/km. Current VIC grid carbon intensity is 1.195kgCO2/kWh. So the Volt is effectively at 178gCO2e/km. That's around 7.7L/100km real world. A car that does 7.7L/100km runs around 6-6.5L/100km nameplate typically. VIC is a very bad example, and in other states you're doing much better. You can get granular with then when when you charge (AEMO has the data you need), and smaller EVs fare better. A better CO2e argument concerns the embedded carbon in making the car, which is typically higher than a petrol/diesel equivalent. A bit like suggesting a Hybrid Camry is an excellent car on tailpipe CO2 (and it is) but embedded CO2e in building it is greater than the ICE variant. I wasn't as interested in carbon emissions as total emissions - i.e. I'm of the opinion that diesel engines are actually worse for us than petrol. However, Volt is just one car - I believe there's just as many Tesla's on the road as Volts (12 or 24?) - and not all of them are as 'frugal' as the Volt. And Victoria may be a bad example - but that's where I live (in more ways than one). Currently, I believe our two cars, which are running around the 7.5-8l/100km, are better for us than any electric vehicle would be. Working from home is even better... 1
proftournesol Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 There are around 1000 Teslas on the road in Australia. I charge my car at Tesla Superchargers (Tesla purchase an equivalent amount of electricity generated by renewables) or at home where at least half the power is generated from my rooftop PV, the remainder purchased from renewable sources. It's possible to use minimal or no brown coal in Victoria. (Yes, I know electrons are electrons etc) 1
Guest rmpfyf Posted July 8, 2016 Posted July 8, 2016 There's four times as many Teslas on road as there are Volts; they all consume more. There are more i3's though, they all consume less. Total carbon is the only number that matters ultimately; we're not, for instance, including the embedded carbon in the energy used to create fuel from crude when making effective tailpipe emissions comparisons. Your 7.5-8L/100km cars are not more efficient, on carbon equivalence, than electric cars that matter (e.g. not the Tesla).
betty boop Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 some pricing talk on the tesla X http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/tesla-model-x-60d-price-revealed-20160720-gq9q8k.html the entry level model will be $111,900 plus on roads.... 1
ufo Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 some pricing talk on the tesla X http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/tesla-model-x-60d-price-revealed-20160720-gq9q8k.html the entry level model will be $111,900 plus on roads.... Isn't that US price?
betty boop Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 Isn't that US price? well its a local article if US price and in USD you'd expect to say so. though sure always quite possible sloppy reporting ? they do say "from"...when they say price... "However, full details and pricing for the extended range will be revealed closer to the car's Australian launch." 1
ufo Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 well its a local article if US price and in USD you'd expect to say so. though sure always quite possible sloppy reporting ? they do say "from"...when they say price... "However, full details and pricing for the extended range will be revealed closer to the car's Australian launch." Bet u, it will be over $200K here.
proftournesol Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Each X model should be around $5-10k more expensive than the equivalent S 1
ufo Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Each X model should be around $5-10k more expensive than the equivalent S Isn't model S $60K in Us and $120K in AU?
proftournesol Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Elon Musk has released 'Tesla's secret Plan' part 2. You can read it here. Tesla are also working on a ute and a semi 1
proftournesol Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Isn't model S $60K in Us and $120K in AU? Yes and no, the AU price changes as the AUD$/US$ fluctuates. It also depends on which option packs you order and whether you order things like Autopilot at purchase (in which case it attracts LCT) or after delivery (when it doesn't). ACT purchase is cheaper at it's local tax exempt. Model X prices on the website don't include local state taxes and I think include the Federal subsidy for EVs. 1
ufo Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Yes and no, the AU price changes as the AUD$/US$ fluctuates. It also depends on which option packs you order and whether you order things like Autopilot at purchase (in which case it attracts LCT) or after delivery (when it doesn't). ACT purchase is cheaper at it's local tax exempt. Model X prices on the website don't include local state taxes and I think include the Federal subsidy for EVs. As far as I know base model is $60K in US and $120K here.
eman Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Stupid looking doors. Is the '3' thing available here ? and is that the cheapest Tesla so far ? (Waiting for a '3' with SUV 'X' crossover 'country' capacity. IE: Far bit of space for hauling gear about and some good traction for mud roads. Also still waiting to win the lottery) Reports of an 's' update; that still comes in at over $100 K.
proftournesol Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 The Model S is the only Tesla for sale here at the moment. Model X's are imminent, the Model 3 hasn't been released yet, it isn't expected until next year in California, probably 2018 in Australia. The Model S has had a facelift but Tesla don't do traditional model years, cars are regularly updated on the production like so this month's car is most likely to include improvements that weren't on last month's car. The facelift is the first visible change though. 2
Briz Vegas Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) Elon Musk has released 'Tesla's secret Plan' part 2. You can read it here. Tesla are also working on a ute and a semiPart Deux? Elon has been reading my Model three thread. Saw the new model S nose today. Makes it standout a bit more from the crowd. On the issue of cars driving themselves and generating income. They would have to drive themselves because who is going to pimp out the motor when it can do 0 to 100 in 3 seconds. The local hoods would be doing drivebys and seven eleven hold ups in your car while you are sleeping or having a meeting with the boss/staff/customers. Then there is the issue of traffic. I wonder if he has done the modelling of all the likely behaviour scenarios. I have to wonder if his Robo-uber......Rober....whatever, would actually reduce congestion or add to it with empty cars driving eveywhere to pick people up. Its an interesting idea but it seems no more developed than me and a mate bouncing around ideas over a bottle of red on a lazy Friday evening. Edited July 21, 2016 by Briz Vegas 1
eman Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Elon Musk has released 'Tesla's secret Plan' part 2. You can read it here. Tesla are also working on a ute and a semi Ute ? I saw 'Pickup'. Ute is car based. Pickup is a small truck.
Jake Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Ute ? I saw 'Pickup'. Ute is car based. Pickup is a small truck. The yanks don't have utes, they call them all pickups. We call them all utes. 1
eman Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 The yanks don't have utes, they call them all pickups. We call them all utes. Yeah , I guess I'll have to concede that in general speech we are now calling everything with a tray a ute. ( oh sigh). Stepside F350 big block "Ute".
proftournesol Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Meanwhile even in the US sales of the Leaf and eGolf have collapsed as people are waiting for the greater range of the Bolt and Model 3 1
RankStranger Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 (edited) https://player.vimeo.com/video/37751380" @@Briz Vegas This is what traffic made up of self-driving cars will look like (eventually). The point isn't that they don't need you to steer them, it's that they all talk to each other to communicate location, heading, velocity and acceleration so there's no need for traffic signals or lights and none of the human frailties that cause traffic. Probably not in our lifetime, though. Edited July 21, 2016 by RankStranger 1
Guest rmpfyf Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 Probably not in our lifetime, though. Sooner than you think - check out Zoox and a few others. On the issue of cars driving themselves and generating income. They would have to drive themselves because who is going to pimp out the motor when it can do 0 to 100 in 3 seconds. The local hoods would be doing drivebys and seven eleven hold ups in your car while you are sleeping or having a meeting with the boss/staff/customers. Then there is the issue of traffic. I wonder if he has done the modelling of all the likely behaviour scenarios. I have to wonder if his Robo-uber......Rober....whatever, would actually reduce congestion or add to it with empty cars driving eveywhere to pick people up. Its an interesting idea but it seems no more developed than me and a mate bouncing around ideas over a bottle of red on a lazy Friday evening. It's been pretty researched since the 70's - there's a few research mega groups, check out California PATH. Tesla are also working on a ute and a semi Meh. They'll be facing off against some giants in the commercial trucking space, and some ironically-named new boys https://www.trucks.com/2016/07/21/nikola-tesla-trucks/ (in addition to some tech that's just better suited). EV pickups are sensible and nothing new. Just 20 years behind GM. http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1075418_tired-15-year-old-chevy-s-10-electric-pickup-sells-for-4000
Recommended Posts