Fatal Electric Aircraft Crash

[GRG55]

I did. To hard to read the graph. I think OPEC can cause "short term" price hikes. My current thinking is they can reduce output to slowly chip away at over supply; as they did over the past year. Any significant supply cuts which drive up prices will only work for one, maybe two years before enough new capacity comes online to solve the supply problem. My curiosity is how long do you think OPEC can do it?

Tim

Sorry for the delay in response @tspear but I had to head to my office this afternoon and was not trying to deliberately ignore you.
There are lots of things that influence the price of crude oil. Revolutions in Iran, Iraq invading Kuwait and Gulf War 1, a Twitter from the President, an anomalous change in hydrocarbon inventories (broadcast every week by breathless "financial journalists" on Bubblevision desperately trying to inject enough emotion to make it seem important), deposing of long standing Libyan dictators, economic collapse and hyperinflation in Venezuela, news of the threat of terrorism at a Saudi oil facility, and even civil war in Syria - a nation that has only a minuscule amount of oil.

All of it is noise. As is OPEC (and Russia).

Let's look at Gulf War 1 as an example: In January 1990 WTI crude averaged $21.42/bbl. In August Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait. Oil prices in August averaged $25.69 and jumped to $34.69 by October (with spot market trades touching $40 - which is of course the price that made the sensationalized headlines). By December 1990 the average price was down to $26.00 with the US-led coalition campaign not yet started. The US Navy started bombing Baghdad on Jan 17, 1991. By the 28th of Feb it was all over, except for the massive fires in the Kuwait and southern Iraq oilfields which took months to bring under control and restore considerable lost production. Despite the loss of production the crude price fell to $18.28 by the end of that year.

In the grand scheme of things in global petroleum markets it was all noise. One brief spike, among others, in a relentless two decade secular decline in the price of oil, from the 1981 post-Iranian Revolution high (when some forecasters insisted oil was heading to $100/bbl).

In February 1999 WTI averaged $9.30/bbl. Anybody remember this infamous Economist Magazine cover? March 6, 1999. The story inside? Crude at $10, heading for $5.00. "Forever". Just about called the bottom in crude precisely.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing that influences the domestic price of crude oil more than the comparative level and trends of the US Dollar international exchange rate. The rest is just noise.

Below a couple of not-so-great-but-the-best-I-could-do-in-limited-time charts of movements in the past year or so. The first charts the cyclical downtrend in the US$ index (blue line) and the consequent rise in crude price from Apri 2017 and Jan 2018. The second chart is expanded a bit to show the flattening of the $ decline as last year ended (with crude going pretty well sideways) and the subsequent recent US$ rise (due to major capital flows into the USA as a result of the corporate tax cut repatriations and safe-haven funds flows from a Europe in political turmoil (Italy, and this week Spain) + Chinese corruption proceeds via Hong Kong.

You can plot charts like this forever. A year, a decade, go back three decades or more. Like any correlation between the comparative value of the US$ and the price of crude is not perfect, but its pretty bloody high. And given the US$ is the global reserve currency, and how the overwhelming majority of the produced crude barrels in this world are priced, why is anybody surprised? Now that the USA is rivaling both the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) and Russia for top spot in the global crude oil production pantheon this correlation is becoming greater. Think of the US$ as now being on an "oil standard".

All it takes is a small increase in US$ confidence and the price of crude responds.
This is not an economics forum, and I don't know if I have persuaded anyone here to reconsider long held belief systems in what really drives the price of oil. But that's about all the time I got for now.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Well based on the info at hand, it caught on fire before the crash, just a wild guess but I'd think it wasn't the rudder or the pilot who randomly burst into flames

Could have been a fire started by an electrical problem unrelated to the battery. Some of these planes are hybrids (gas or diesel), it could have been an engine or fuel issue. Those planes have a BRS, but I didn't see reports of it being deployed; perhaps there was another problem and the rocket that deploys the parachute set the plane on fire.

 

[GRG55]

...Those planes have a BRS, but I didn't see reports of it being deployed; perhaps there was another problem and the rocket that deploys the parachute set the plane on fire.

Wow. That makes this even more tragic. RIP.

 

[tspear]

@GRG55

Oh, I have seen the USD to BBL stuff before. And I agree from a long term trend perspective, the correlation is super high. But I think there are many events, and some producers that can swing the needle for a while.

Based on what I have read from people in the domestic oil business; US capability to bring new fields or expand new fields has become so good that the best OPEC and Russia could do is swing the needle to a high price for at most a year. Personally, like I said before I think it is closer to six months. OPEC and Russia did lower production a small amount to reduce over supply, but any attempt to actually drive the price higher and US production will make up for it. In fact they are acting as if they are afraid of the price going above 70 and will increase production to push it down. Theory is above 70, to much US capacity becomes viable and they will just lose market share.

Tim

 

[James331]

Could have been a fire started by an electrical problem unrelated to the battery. Some of these planes are hybrids (gas or diesel), it could have been an engine or fuel issue. Those planes have a BRS, but I didn't see reports of it being deployed; perhaps there was another problem and the rocket that deploys the parachute set the plane on fire.

Could have also been a drone strike or a alien death ray too, but betcha a beer it had to do with that big arse battery.

Wow. That makes this even more tragic. RIP.

With a fire?
Yeah, I'd rather just get it over with one way or another

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well based on the info at hand, it caught on fire before the crash, just a wild guess but I'd think it wasn't the rudder or the pilot who randomly burst into flames

Again, eyewitness accounts. Generally highly unreliable. Most eyewitnesses report sputtering engines, nose down attitude, etc because that's what they think a crash is like, not because it actually happened that way.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Could have also been a drone strike or a alien death ray too, but betcha a beer it had to do with that big arse battery.

<SNIP>

I already agreed the battery was the probable cause (see post 36 this thread). The rest of the comment, well it sounds like a politician on a news channel who gets asked a tough question and reverts to their talking points. Or a reporter in the lame-stream media who has an agenda. With the possible exception of the BRS rocket, we've had in-flight fires from the other causes I've listed on current planes. Why should this one be any different? Why couldn't it be the other causes?

 

[James331]

Wow. That makes this even more tragic. RIP.

I already agreed the battery was the probable cause (see post 36 this thread). The rest of the comment, well it sounds like a politician on a news channel who gets asked a tough question and reverts to their talking points. Or a reporter in the lame-stream media who has an agenda. With the possible exception of the BRS rocket, we've had in-flight fires from the other causes I've listed on current planes. Why should this one be any different? Why couldn't it be the other causes?

With a inflight fire do you slow your decent or speed it up, I know FSI doesn't teach a slow decent with a fire.

 

[GRG55]

@GRG55

Oh, I have seen the USD to BBL stuff before. And I agree from a long term trend perspective, the correlation is super high. But I think there are many events, and some producers that can swing the needle for a while.

Based on what I have read from people in the domestic oil business; US capability to bring new fields or expand new fields has become so good that the best OPEC and Russia could do is swing the needle to a high price for at most a year. Personally, like I said before I think it is closer to six months. OPEC and Russia did lower production a small amount to reduce over supply, but any attempt to actually drive the price higher and US production will make up for it. In fact they are acting as if they are afraid of the price going above 70 and will increase production to push it down. Theory is above 70, to much US capacity becomes viable and they will just lose market share.

Tim

It's closer to $45, not $70.
And 6 months or a year is still just a blip.
But the relationship is still solid as I attempted to demonstrate with the deliberately short term 1 yr and 6 mo charts, apparently unconvincingly.

Nice evening to go flying...

 

[GRG55]

With a inflight fire do you slow your decent or speed it up, I know FSI doesn't teach a slow decent with a fire.

Point taken.

 

[tspear]

It's closer to $45, not $70.
And 6 months or a year is still just a blip.
But the relationship is still solid as I attempted to demonstrate with the deliberately short term 1 yr and 6 mo charts, apparently unconvincingly.

Nice evening to go flying...

Oops. Did not see the compressed time on your post.

Sent from my LG-TP260 using Tapatalk

 

[3393RP]

li-ion does have issues with combustibility, and then burn hot as hades. But, I think that is a hurdle that can be eventually overcome, it's not the reason electric planes are a silly idea.

RIP to the test pilots.

It wouldn't necessarily be a cell fire. The intercell power conductors carry significant current, as do the feeders from the battery to the motor. The insulation on those conductors along with the plastics forming the battery compartment could overheat and burn easily if a failure occurs.

Batteries are chemical storage devices. With the desire to re-charge them ever more quickly, and also achieve the high discharge rates needed to power automobiles and light airplanes, manufacturers are pushing the limits of the chemistry. The total number of Tesla cars on the road is still relatively small - as of end of first quarter 2018 that number was 29,980 cars in total. The number of thermal runaways that have "spontaneously combusted" on the road or at Supercharger stations, or have ignited after an accident is growing too.

And the misplaced hopes of some breakthrough in battery technology continues. Battery technology improvement is painfully incremental. There's no Moore's Law about to materialize.

View attachment 63722 View attachment 63723 View attachment 63724

The expectations of the public are driven by misleading or false information from the CEO of the largest EV maker and the common belief that a Moore's Law breakthrough in energy density is going to happen any day.

I look around it from the chemical capability of compounds with free electrons and the properties which allow them to flow in great numbers in both directions while producing minimal heat.

Right now only a few compounds fit that description. There won't be a Enrico Fermi bombarding every chemical on the periodic table and finding a fission reaction. Lise Meaner and Otto Hahn will not be calculating how a 200 Mev energy release proves fission and element transformation takes place.

No, we're stuck with chemical batteries, and will be for the foreseeable future.

 

[GRG55]

...But, there's a lot of research going on into new technologies, which are not always chemical batteries, because of the desire to have a better (lighter, faster-to-charge, smaller per kWh, etc) battery for electric cars.

Would be interested in a reference to any non-chemical battery research you might point me to.

I have been following the developments in organic batteries (e.g. Harvard) and gravity flow batteries (e.g. MIT), but those are also chemical processes.

 

[PaulS]

I think the battery tech is pretty close now. Tesla is advertising a car with a 300+ mile range. Maybe the answer isn't in faster recharging or longer range batteries. Maybe the answer is a logistics issue. Something like automatically replaced batteries, done at stations much like or repurposed gas stations where depleted batteries are removed and recharged batteries are installed in the time it takes to fill a gas tank. In fact for most of the driving most people do, a 300 mile range is more than needed for 99% of the driving they do, so home recharging would work for them 99% of the time. It certainly is interesting times.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

With a inflight fire do you slow your decent or speed it up, I know FSI doesn't teach a slow decent with a fire.

Again, I don't understand the point. My question was about the possibility of the other components being the cause of the fire.

• Some of these planes have engines. Of these, some have diesel and others have gasoline. There was nothing indicating the plane was not a hybrid. The "sputtering engine" suggests it was a hybrid.
• All of them have an electrical system.
• The planes we enjoy now have had engine fires and electrical fires.
• I'm not ruling out a fire from a BRS deployment gone bad

So what makes these planes so special that one of these "legacy issues" couldn't be the cause?

 

[tspear]

I think the battery tech is pretty close now. Tesla is advertising a car with a 300+ mile range. Maybe the answer isn't in faster recharging or longer range batteries. Maybe the answer is a logistics issue. Something like automatically replaced batteries, done at stations much like or repurposed gas stations where depleted batteries are removed and recharged batteries are installed in the time it takes to fill a gas tank. In fact for most of the driving most people do, a 300 mile range is more than needed for 99% of the driving they do, so home recharging would work for them 99% of the time. It certainly is interesting times.

Likely much easier to have/rent a generator on a mini trailer which can be towed by the car. Think of it as an on demand hybrid power source. No need to carry it majority of the time; just hook up when you need longer range, forgot to charge the car....

Tim

 

[PaulS]

Likely much easier to have/rent a generator on a mini trailer which can be towed by the car. Think of it as an on demand hybrid power source. No need to carry it majority of the time; just hook up when you need longer range, forgot to charge the car....

Tim

Not a bad idea, wouldn't even need to be on a trailer, just attach to a trailer hitch, a big enough generator and fuel would probably only weigh a few hundred pounds. Good short term solution. I like the battery replacement idea better, but the issue that most would need it only 1% of the time would cause a lack of demand issue probably making it unworkable.

 

[James331]

Again, I don't understand the point. My question was about the possibility of the other components being the cause of the fire.

• Some of these planes have engines. Of these, some have diesel and others have gasoline. There was nothing indicating the plane was not a hybrid. The "sputtering engine" suggests it was a hybrid.
• All of them have an electrical system.
• The planes we enjoy now have had engine fires and electrical fires.
• I'm not ruling out a fire from a BRS deployment gone bad

So what makes these planes so special that one of these "legacy issues" couldn't be the cause?

There is a large difference between a engine fire fueled by fuel infront of a firewall and a random thermal runaway, that is 0-60 in nothing flat and involving hundreds to thousands of pounds of batteries which are likely in the fuselage with you, I've never heard of a tank of 100LL or jet A spontaneously combusting like a li ion.

Also most all of the fleet isn't running li ion batteries.

 

[dell30rb]

Could have been a fire started by an electrical problem unrelated to the battery. Some of these planes are hybrids (gas or diesel), it could have been an engine or fuel issue. Those planes have a BRS, but I didn't see reports of it being deployed; perhaps there was another problem and the rocket that deploys the parachute set the plane on fire.

According to multiple articles, the airplane involved was an all-electric Magnus EFusion.

A 12 or 24v electrical fire in a normal GA aircraft is pretty slow moving. Smoke in the cockpit, and you generally have a few minutes. This airplane apparently caught fire and crashed immediately, in a flaming ball of death (my interpretation of the witness accounts and photos of the crash site).

These aircraft have lithium polymer batteries. I have some experience with them as I used to fly RC aircraft a bit and hang around the RC forums. While they have revolutionized RC because of their light weight, I saw enough to understand that even well made batteries are extremely flammable. A minor impact damaging a single cell can cause the whole battery to go up in flames. Overcharging a cell can cause the same thing.

https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/magnus-efusion-light-sport-aircraft/

 

[GRG55]

I think the battery tech is pretty close now. Tesla is advertising a car with a 300+ mile range. Maybe the answer isn't in faster recharging or longer range batteries. Maybe the answer is a logistics issue. Something like automatically replaced batteries, done at stations much like or repurposed gas stations where depleted batteries are removed and recharged batteries are installed in the time it takes to fill a gas tank. In fact for most of the driving most people do, a 300 mile range is more than needed for 99% of the driving they do, so home recharging would work for them 99% of the time. It certainly is interesting times.

The battery pack in the Model 3 is more difficult to remove than the Model S. Apparently requires taking out part of the interior of the car, so would seem Tesla is not going the battery swap route for now.

Advertised battery range for electric cars reminds me of advertised max cruise airspeeds for piston GA aircraft back in the good ol' days. Achievable only if one is pointed somewhat downhill.

It must be difficult for the electric car makers because "real world" vs "Rated" range is dependent on so many variables that come into play. Ambient temperature, battery temperature, the benefits of regenerative braking are not available if the car is 100% charged when you start out which temporarily lowers the efficiency of the car, the confusion around "Ideal" vs "Rated" settings on the Tesla guess-o-meter range display, the slight, but measurable degradation as the battery ages with recharge cycles, cabin heat/wipers/lights/seat heater on in winter (What's the best thing about a Tesla battery pack fire in winter? Underfloor heat )

I think Tesla is now locked into a static battery technology for the time being. It would be a monumental and expensive task to change the Gigafactory to produce a new generation, improved battery. And almost certainly not economic...but then I see no evidence economics plays a role anywhere in the company, so what do I know.

A Gigafactory technology upgrade might be a killer while Tesla continues to struggle with the considerable challenges of solving the car production volume problems. Any organization can only make so many changes at one time. I must confess I'm impressed it has made it this far. A lot of other companies would have run out of money and committed talent before this.

I would guess Tesla is achieving increased range with perhaps larger capacity battery packs, steadily improving software management of the charge/discharge cycle, lighter weight of the Model 3 car, an effort to reduce the number of Wh/mile, and maybe a way to more consistently use all of the available battery (down to 1% charge?) without inducing repeated range-anxiety pucker-factor in the owners? Nothing frightens a guy more than not being able to "go the distance".

 

[drotto]

Back on the efficiency of batteries, you have to also consider the energy lost in the charging and discharging cycle. Most batteries are capable of discharging between 60 to 70% of the energy put into them. So yes the electric motor may have 90% thermal efficiency, but the batteries do not.

So when we consider the overall efficiency of an electric system, and the potential "greeness" you have an entire energy chain to consider. With an ICE it is essentially one step, fuel to work. Current engines range from 30 to 40 % efficient in that conversion. Now an electric vehicle has four potential points of energy loss ( at least). Initial generation, transmission to use point (power lines etc), charging and discharging the battery, and finally the electric motor. This example assumes that the initial energy refinement and transport to where the fuel is converted to the power source is similar. Here that would be the gas station or power plant. For electric people have to remember the charge needs to come from somewhere.

I honestly do not know how much energy is lost at each point, but from an overall energy consumption standpoint for electrics all points are significant. That electricity needs to be generated. And in the US about 63% of that generation is still fossil fuel.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[PaulS]

The battery pack in the Model 3 is more difficult to remove than the Model S. Apparently requires taking out part of the interior of the car, so would seem Tesla is not going the battery swap route for now.

Advertised battery range for electric cars reminds me of advertised max cruise airspeeds for piston GA aircraft back in the good ol' days. Achievable only if one is pointed somewhat downhill.

It must be difficult for the electric car makers because "real world" vs "Rated" range is dependent on so many variables that come into play. Ambient temperature, battery temperature, the benefits of regenerative braking are not available if the car is 100% charged when you start out which temporarily lowers the efficiency of the car, the confusion around "Ideal" vs "Rated" settings on the Tesla guess-o-meter range display, the slight, but measurable degradation as the battery ages with recharge cycles, cabin heat/wipers/lights/seat heater on in winter (What's the best thing about a Tesla battery pack fire in winter? Underfloor heat )

I think Tesla is now locked into a static battery technology for the time being. It would be a monumental and expensive task to change the Gigafactory to produce a new generation, improved battery. And almost certainly not economic...but then I see no evidence economics plays a role anywhere in the company, so what do I know.

A Gigafactory technology upgrade might be a killer while Tesla continues to struggle with the considerable challenges of solving the car production volume problems. Any organization can only make so many changes at one time. I must confess I'm impressed it has made it this far. A lot of other companies would have run out of money and committed talent before this.

I would guess Tesla is achieving increased range with perhaps larger capacity battery packs, steadily improving software management of the charge/discharge cycle, lighter weight of the Model 3 car, an effort to reduce the number of Wh/mile, and maybe a way to more consistently use all of the available battery (down to 1% charge?) without inducing repeated range-anxiety pucker-factor in the owners? Nothing frightens a guy more than not being able to "go the distance".

Personally, I'm content with the current petro model for transportation except for its susceptibility to price spikes. I think $2 a gallon for gas is a good price for most. $3 a gallon is getting too expensive IMHO and really makes me consider buying electric.

We have a municipal electric company here, a year or two ago they had "special" running where you could buy a Nissan Leaf brand new for about $12000, and they would give you a high speed charger that they could control for about $300. You had to pay to get it installed, about another $200 to $300 bucks. I almost did it but, I have enough cars and didn't want to have to deal with another. That car had about a 200 mile range IIRC, and would have served about 90% of my driving needs.

 

[PaulS]

Back on the efficiency of batteries, you have to also consider the energy lost in the charging and discharging cycle. Most batteries are capable of discharging between 60 to 70% of the energy put into them. So yes the electric motor may have 90% thermal efficiency, but the batteries do not.

So when we consider the overall efficiency of an electric system, and the potential "greeness" you have an entire energy chain to consider. With an ICE it is essentially one step, fuel to work. Current engines range from 30 to 40 % efficient in that conversion. Now an electric vehicle has four potential points of energy loss ( at least). Initial generation, transmission to use point (power lines etc), charging and discharging the battery, and finally the electric motor. This example assumes that the initial energy refinement and transport to where the fuel is converted to the power source is similar. Here that would be the gas station or power plant. For electric people have to remember the charge needs to come from somewhere.

I honestly do not know how much energy is lost at each point, but from an overall energy consumption standpoint for electrics all points are significant. That electricity needs to be generated. And in the US about 63% of that generation is still fossil fuel.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

Well, I could give a flying F about being green, in fact I think many "green" efforts are a joke with unintended consequences far more damaging than the "bad" behavior it intends to replace at a higher price, but whatever, I could be wrong, at least I consider that possibility unlike green warriors.

To your point about efficiency, I used to feel the same way as you do about it, until I started looking at it. My cost per kwh for charging a car, worst case, today, is 12.5 cents per kwh. The model 3 long range has a 75 kwh battery and can go, supposedly, 310 miles on that, fully charged, I don't know if the battery fully discharges or not, but I assume that is figured into the range. So if I assume the charger is 80% efficient (this number should be pretty conservative from what I read), it will take 94 kwh to charge my battery. If I do the math, it will take $11.75 worth of electricity to charge my car. Versus a 30 mpg car (which again is probably conservative for a comparable car that can go 0 to 60 in 5.1 seconds like the model 3) which would use 10 gallons of $2.90/gallon gas ( current price near me) it's less than half to run the electric car. It's hands down more energy efficient as the price I pay has all the electric grid inefficiencies built into it.

 

[GRG55]

Personally, I'm content with the current petro model for transportation except for its susceptibility to price spikes. I think $2 a gallon for gas is a good price for most. $3 a gallon is getting too expensive IMHO and really makes me consider buying electric.

We have a municipal electric company here, a year or two ago they had "special" running where you could buy a Nissan Leaf brand new for about $12000, and they would give you a high speed charger that they could control for about $300. You had to pay to get it installed, about another $200 to $300 bucks. I almost did it but, I have enough cars and didn't want to have to deal with another. That car had about a 200 mile range IIRC, and would have served about 90% of my driving needs.

Electric cars (and most other range limited alternate fuel vehicles, such as CNG) are well suited to a "return-to-base" usage model. Commercial delivery or trash haul vehicles starting at a depot (with chargers or a CNG fill station) that do a route and end up back at the refueling point at the end of the shift. Urban transit and school buses. Taxi's that tend to operate on random routes, but in a limited geography inside the city, so just a few specialized refueling points still provide good coverage. Commuters to/from home on the same route most days of the week.

It is happening slowly, but we could go a long way to get off imported oil if we just aggressively converted all these usages to CNG or electric. The paradox is in your statement above about gasoline prices. At $2.00 a gallon gasoline is cheap and there is no incentive to make the capital investments for the alternate fuel infrastructure and the more expensive vehicles to go with them.

 

[GRG55]

...The model 3 long range has a 75 kwh battery and can go, supposedly, 310 miles on that, fully charged, I don't know if the battery fully discharges or not, but I assume that is figured into the range. So if I assume the charger is 80% efficient (this number should be pretty conservative from what I read), it will take 94 kwh to charge my battery. If I do the math, it will take $11.75 worth of electricity to charge my car. Versus a 30 mpg car (which again is probably conservative for a comparable car that can go 0 to 60 in 5.1 seconds like the model 3) which would use 10 gallons of $2.90/gallon gas ( current price near me) it's less than half to run the electric car. It's hands down more energy efficient as the price I pay has all the electric grid inefficiencies built into it.

I would approach every advertised range figure for any electric vehicle with a good deal of skepticism. There's too many variables that influence it in the real world. These guys are fans of the Tesla, not bashers. And SoCal is about as benign a climate as one is ever going to find for running an electric car in near perfect environmental conditions for it. Read on:

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-real-world-battery-range-test/

Ben Sullins of YouTube’s Teslanomics recently conducted a real-world battery range test for his Model 3. Starting with a full, 100% charge in San Diego, CA, the YouTuber went on a road trip headed to Las Vegas, NV in an attempt to see how long the electric car’s battery would last.

The Teslanomics host stated during the beginning of his real-world Tesla Model 3 battery range test that the distance from his starting point to Las Vegas was almost exactly 310 miles — the rated range for the electric car. Thus, if the vehicle’s battery lasts as long as it was estimated for, the car should run out of battery just outside Vegas.

It did not take long before it became evident that the vehicle was using up more range than expected. By the time the car was near Joshua Tree, CA, Ben’s Model 3 had an estimated 133 miles left. The vehicle had only been traveling for 139 miles by then. The Model 3 was mostly on Autopilot during the drive, traveling at highway speeds.​

 

[PaulS]

I would approach every advertised range figure for any electric vehicle with a good deal of skepticism. There's too many variables that influence it in the real world. These guys are fans of the Tesla, not bashers. And SoCal is about as benign a climate as one is ever going to find for running an electric car in near perfect environmental conditions for it. Read on:

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-3-real-world-battery-range-test/

Ben Sullins of YouTube’s Teslanomics recently conducted a real-world battery range test for his Model 3. Starting with a full, 100% charge in San Diego, CA, the YouTuber went on a road trip headed to Las Vegas, NV in an attempt to see how long the electric car’s battery would last.

The Teslanomics host stated during the beginning of his real-world Tesla Model 3 battery range test that the distance from his starting point to Las Vegas was almost exactly 310 miles — the rated range for the electric car. Thus, if the vehicle’s battery lasts as long as it was estimated for, the car should run out of battery just outside Vegas.

It did not take long before it became evident that the vehicle was using up more range than expected. By the time the car was near Joshua Tree, CA, Ben’s Model 3 had an estimated 133 miles left. The vehicle had only been traveling for 139 miles by then. The Model 3 was mostly on Autopilot during the drive, traveling at highway speeds.​

Gasoline EPA numbers are the same type of dream numbers, but you have to set a basis somewhere and supposedly they are "scientific".

 

[drotto]

Electric cars (and most other range limited alternate fuel vehicles, such as CNG) are well suited to a "return-to-base" usage model. Commercial delivery or trash haul vehicles starting at a depot (with chargers or a CNG fill station) that do a route and end up back at the refueling point at the end of the shift. Urban transit and school buses. Taxi's that tend to operate on random routes, but in a limited geography inside the city, so just a few specialized refueling points still provide good coverage. Commuters to/from home on the same route most days of the week.

It is happening slowly, but we could go a long way to get off imported oil if we just aggressively converted all these usages to CNG or electric. The paradox is in your statement above about gasoline prices. At $2.00 a gallon gasoline is cheap and there is no incentive to make the capital investments for the alternate fuel infrastructure and the more expensive vehicles to go with them.

I agree 100%. I have been seriously considering getting my wife a Telsa as a commuter car. Out to work and back each day, and to run local errands. She already has a hybrid, and likes the idea of never going to a gas station again. Plus, we tend to use my car for longer trips because it can haul more stuff.

But the traveling with the car becomes the issue. We have planned a group trip this summer that is 7 1/2 hrs by Google maps with no traffic and no stops. A few of my friends are planning on leaving at 12 AM and basically pushing straight through with 1 (maybe 2) stop for gas and the bathroom. So figuring just under 8 hours.

One friend is insisting on taking his Tesla. He told me he expects the trip to take at least 1 hour longer to get there than everyone else because he must make 2 stops plus go out of his way somewhat to find a charger. So he is figuring 9 hrs. Mind you all these are barring a traffic issue.

I am flying at it will take me 2 1/2 to 3 hrs including the 45 minute drive to a from the airports. With traffic factored in.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[drotto]

Gasoline EPA numbers are the same type of dream numbers, but you have to set a basis somewhere and supposedly they are "scientific".

I routinely get or exceed the EPA numbers in my car. I have done that on last several cars I have owned.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

 

[PaulS]

I routinely get or exceed the EPA numbers in my car. I have done that on last several cars I have owned.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I don't, probably more due to geography and driving habits.

 

[James331]

The battery pack in the Model 3 is more difficult to remove than the Model S. Apparently requires taking out part of the interior of the car, so would seem Tesla is not going the battery swap route for now.

Advertised battery range for electric cars reminds me of advertised max cruise airspeeds for piston GA aircraft back in the good ol' days. Achievable only if one is pointed somewhat downhill.

It must be difficult for the electric car makers because "real world" vs "Rated" range is dependent on so many variables that come into play. Ambient temperature, battery temperature, the benefits of regenerative braking are not available if the car is 100% charged when you start out which temporarily lowers the efficiency of the car, the confusion around "Ideal" vs "Rated" settings on the Tesla guess-o-meter range display, the slight, but measurable degradation as the battery ages with recharge cycles, cabin heat/wipers/lights/seat heater on in winter (What's the best thing about a Tesla battery pack fire in winter? Underfloor heat )

I think Tesla is now locked into a static battery technology for the time being. It would be a monumental and expensive task to change the Gigafactory to produce a new generation, improved battery. And almost certainly not economic...but then I see no evidence economics plays a role anywhere in the company, so what do I know.

A Gigafactory technology upgrade might be a killer while Tesla continues to struggle with the considerable challenges of solving the car production volume problems. Any organization can only make so many changes at one time. I must confess I'm impressed it has made it this far. A lot of other companies would have run out of money and committed talent before this.

I would guess Tesla is achieving increased range with perhaps larger capacity battery packs, steadily improving software management of the charge/discharge cycle, lighter weight of the Model 3 car, an effort to reduce the number of Wh/mile, and maybe a way to more consistently use all of the available battery (down to 1% charge?) without inducing repeated range-anxiety pucker-factor in the owners? Nothing frightens a guy more than not being able to "go the distance".

That's thinking tesla motors so will outlive the life span of current batteries in their cars, which I think is a big if.

 

[GRG55]

Gasoline EPA numbers are the same type of dream numbers, but you have to set a basis somewhere and supposedly they are "scientific".

Well there is a standard. Actually there's several different standards worldwide.
I believe when Tesla's range meter is set for "Rated" is trying to emulate the US EPA standard.
I know a few (very few) folks with Teslas. They all switched their battery monitors to "Percent Charge" or something like that so it reads like a normal fuel gauge. They don't bother trying to figure out range as it is so variable due to factors beyond their control.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

There is a large difference between a engine fire fueled by fuel infront of a firewall and a random thermal runaway, that is 0-60 in nothing flat and involving hundreds to thousands of pounds of batteries which are likely in the fuselage with you, I've never heard of a tank of 100LL or jet A spontaneously combusting like a li ion.

Also most all of the fleet isn't running li ion batteries.

Again, you are assuming it could ONLY be the battery.
The plane in question also probably had an engine similar to legacy planes. It definitely had an electrical system. It had a BRS rocket. You haven't explained why none of these could possibly be the source of a fire, as they are in legacy planes.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

According to multiple articles, the airplane involved was an all-electric Magnus EFusion.

A 12 or 24v electrical fire in a normal GA aircraft is pretty slow moving. Smoke in the cockpit, and you generally have a few minutes. This airplane apparently caught fire and crashed immediately, in a flaming ball of death (my interpretation of the witness accounts and photos of the crash site).

These aircraft have lithium polymer batteries. I have some experience with them as I used to fly RC aircraft a bit and hang around the RC forums. While they have revolutionized RC because of their light weight, I saw enough to understand that even well made batteries are extremely flammable. A minor impact damaging a single cell can cause the whole battery to go up in flames. Overcharging a cell can cause the same thing.

https://www.aerospace-technology.com/projects/magnus-efusion-light-sport-aircraft/

Finally, a reasoned reply about how the plane was actually configured! While it still could be a "normal" electrical fire, the other possible causes I listed, except for perhaps a BRS mishap, could be ruled out.

 

[GRG55]

That's thinking tesla motors so will outlive the life span of current batteries in their cars, which I think is a big if.

LOL.

James, you don't know what I actually think of Tesla. But we are not too far apart.

For some years I have not been able to make any logical sense of Tesla's so-called "business model". Their model might work for a while hand building small numbers of expensive, high margin taxpayer subsidized luxury sedans (there was one Province up in Canada that used to give away $14,000 to anyone buying a $100,000+ Model S or X. As tax policy can you get any more stupid than that?). That sketchy biz model broke down completely the day Tesla announced it was going to save the world with an "affordable, mass produced" electric Model 3 "People's Car". Sure.

The reason I said I was "impressed" in that prior post is because I figured they would be toast long before this.

In a prior post I confessed to being in my 41st year in the hydrocarbon biz. I've worked everything from upstream oil exploration and production to international blue-water LPG transport and trading, and co-founded and now run a specialized services CNG & LNG business with offices and operations in the USA and Canada. We don't do transportation vehicles or fueling stations; our niche is extremely specialized. But I do try to keep an eye on what's going on with technology and government policies related to alternate fuel vehicles as there can always be potential for some technology transfer opportunities, or the risk of getting sideswiped by some well intentioned but poorly thought out green policy change.

I grew up poor and thus have an aversion to putting money into personal use, depreciating assets (airplane notwithstanding ). I also live in a mountainous snow belt region, so I buy used American made gas engine 1/2 ton pick ups and drive them until the wheels fall off (I typically target 300,000 miles). Like my Aztec they are big, comfortable and tough vehicles. I log 35k to 45k miles per year, and although I pay more for fuel (I don't believe in peak oil or OPEC or any that stuff), it would be difficult for anybody with an expensive, "efficient", limited production volume alternate fuel, electric, hybrid or whatever car to compete with my $/mile on a full-cycle, all-in cost of ownership basis - opportunity cost of tied up capital, depreciation, taxes, insurance, parts, and even the higher maintenance of an older vehicle is still less than any limited production green vehicle is going to experience. The "return to base" model makes sense for alternate fuel, especially for fleets. The rest? I dunno.

I can afford to buy any kind of vehicle I want. What I do is by choice.

But I think my experience is also the outcome for millions of our workers. They will never be able to afford these expensive green toy baubles, and most of them are probably doing a version of what I do, but not by choice - driving a well used gasoline engine Toyota Corroded because they have to get to their jobs so they can feed their families and pay their taxes, including the outrageous save-the-planet subsidies for Tesla buyers, who least need them.

I hear a Tesla can go 0-60 in 0.002 seconds, or something like that. Some say its not a valid comparison if your ICE-powered vehicle can't do the same. My made in the USA 6.2 litre, 400 hp V-8 GMC Denali AWD is plenty fast enough to move my bones.

I gotta put an end to this...I am starting to turn into a clone of Nate.

 

[drotto]

LOL.

James, you don't know what I actually think of Tesla. But we are not too far apart.

For some years I have not been able to make any logical sense of Tesla's so-called "business model". Their model might work for a while hand building small numbers of expensive, high margin taxpayer subsidized luxury sedans (there was one Province up in Canada that used to give away $14,000 to anyone buying a $100,000+ Model S or X. As tax policy can you get any more stupid than that?). That sketchy biz model broke down completely the day Tesla announced it was going to save the world with an "affordable, mass produced" electric Model 3 "People's Car". Sure.

The reason I said I was "impressed" in that prior post is because I figured they would be toast long before this.

In a prior post I confessed to being in my 41st year in the hydrocarbon biz. I've worked everything from upstream oil exploration and production to international blue-water LPG transport and trading, and co-founded and now run a specialized services CNG & LNG business with offices and operations in the USA and Canada. We don't do transportation vehicles or fueling stations; our niche is extremely specialized. But I do try to keep an eye on what's going on with technology and government policies related to alternate fuel vehicles as there can always be potential for some technology transfer opportunities, or the risk of getting sideswiped by some well intentioned but poorly thought out green policy change.

I have an aversion to putting money into personal use, depreciating assets (airplane notwithstanding ). I also live in a mountainous snow belt region, so I buy used American made gas engine 1/2 ton pick ups and drive them until the wheels fall off (I typically target 300,000 miles). Like my Aztec they are big, comfortable and tough vehicles. I log 35k to 45k miles per year, and although I pay more for fuel (I don't believe in peak oil or OPEC or any that stuff) and maybe also for maintenance, it would be difficult for anybody with an expensive, "efficient", limited production volume alternate fuel, electric, hybrid or whatever car to compete with my $/mile on a full-cycle, all-in cost of ownership basis - opportunity cost of tied up capital, depreciation, taxes, insurance, parts and much else is lower than any limited production green vehicle is going to experience.

I hear a Tesla can go 0-60 in 0.002 seconds, or something like that. Some say its not a valid comparison if your ICE powered vehicle can't do the same. My made in the USA 6.2 litre, 400 hp V-8 AWD is plenty fast enough to move my bones.

But I can tell you from talking to a few Tesla fans (one of which is a good friend of mine), you can not convince them that Tesla and electric cars are not going to take over the world within the next few years. He brings up that the chargers are "free" for X and S owners. Now granted 3 owners are going to have to pay to use chargers, but in general how is giving somebody "free" energy a sustainable business model? He is also 100% convinced that electric cars will make up at least 50% of the market in the next 20 years, and gas stations will be a thing of the past within our lifetimes. I just do not see it. Bring up anything negative about the company: missing production goals, poor quality control, never made a profit, need for more capital, etc, and it is brushed aside like it all that means nothing. Somehow, Tesla is immune or does not need to follow very well established and important rules of doing business.

There is a blinding fanboy mentality that goes with Tesla. I will give them that they are pushing technology, new ideas, and mainstreaming a product that does have a place. Their cars do intrigue me, and like I have said earlier, I would consider buying one. What I personally feel is more likely to happen is when the incentives are gone, and the major legacy car makers start rolling out their electric cars, Tesla could get buried. Part of me is convinced one of the big car makers will acquire Tesla, and then truly make them profitable. History is full of people that came up with great ideas only to be destroyed by others who took those ideas and found a way to do it even better and more importantly cheaper.

Ford proved, you need to make the every person's car before any of these technologies will truly take hold. The Model 3 at 35K to start, but realistically 45k to 50K delivered is not the mass market car the media is attempting to convince us it is. At those prices, you have already excluded a large percentage who flat out can not afford it. Furthermore, I can not see sustained sales at the rates they need to stay profitable. Yes, the have 450,000 pre-orders (apparently about 65,000 or more have now been cancelled), but once you get through those that are thrilled to get their hands on the car, is there really a large enough market to sell 500,000 per year at an average of $45K sustained in order to really make money? For years, luxury makers like BMW, Audi, etc have sold cars in that price range, and they sell nowhere near that many units. How can Tesla? For those numbers you need a $20k to $25k car that people can drive away at that price. That is not and never will be the Model 3.

 

[GRG55]

But I can tell you from talking to a few Tesla fans (one of which is a good friend of mine), you can not convince them that Tesla and electric cars are not going to take over the world within the next few years. He brings up that the chargers are "free" for X and S owners. Now granted 3 owners are going to have to pay to use chargers, but in general how is giving somebody "free" energy a sustainable business model? He is also 100% convinced that electric cars will make up at least 50% of the market in the next 20 years, and gas stations will be a thing of the past within our lifetimes. I just do not see it. Bring up anything negative about the company: missing production goals, poor quality control, never made a profit, need for more capital, etc, and it is brushed aside like it all that means nothing. Somehow, Tesla is immune or does not need to follow very well established and important rules of doing business...

1) It's like a global, secular religion complete with the obligatory squad of evangelists, isn't it.
2) The implications of 50% market share for electric means the total car market has shrunk dramatically and large parts of the population are doing their part to save the planet by riding the bus or electric-Uber jelly-beans because they can no longer afford a car. There's no Moore's Law that is going to overcome the physics of moving a vehicle big enough to carry people. Electric cars will not ever become thinner, faster, cheaper as with cell phones and tablets. See my note next section below.
3) "It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future" - Yogi Berra. It's damn difficult to compete with gasoline and diesel as a convenient, cost effective way to store energy in high density, most especially when used for transportation fuel.

There is a blinding fanboy mentality that goes with Tesla. I will give them that they are pushing technology, new ideas, and mainstreaming a product that does have a place. Their cars do intrigue me, and like I have said earlier, I would consider buying one. What I personally feel is more likely to happen is when the incentives are gone, and the major legacy car makers start rolling out their electric cars, Tesla could get buried. Part of me is convinced one of the big car makers will acquire Tesla, and then truly make them profitable. History is full of people that came up with great ideas only to be destroyed by others who took those ideas and found a way to do it even better and more importantly cheaper....

1) I started out in the resource exploration and extraction business. In that game there are always shysters and sheep fleecers running around raising money from "investors" on a great story with the promise of getting rich drilling an oil well on moose pasture or digging a gold mine. Their game is to take a promote on the investors money for themselves and sell it at the peak of the hype just as the well starts drilling. The smartest of them understood "Never fall in love with your own b'shzt". But after numerous retellings raising money, I watched a remarkable number of them come under the spell of their own enchanting rhetoric, true believers that rode the whole thing down to another dry hole with zero for even themselves. Greed works on the mind in strange ways.

Tesla has been promoted and marketed as a technology company, and carries a technology company stock price multiple. Musk has everybody in the company believing their own b'shzt. Maybe he even believes it himself; I can't tell. Perhaps I am being unkind, but Tesla slung an upgraded version of Edison's motor, wired it to a common battery storage technology, stuck it in a frame with four wheels, dolled it up with the usual vanity cabin options every garden variety Palm Beach Caddie now comes with, and (to its credit) in the Model S, wrapped it in a truly lovely looking aluminum coachworks (that they largely swiped from Audi and Jaguar).

Like those drilling funds, Tesla is a fantastical story. Promoted as a save-the-world breakthrough product. Promoted as a lifestyle luxury good with socially redeeming attributes you can brag about at the country club. Promoted as a transcontinental network of...wait for it...FREE Superchargers (is there anything wealthy car buyers like better than something "free" ?). Promoted as a vehicle so remarkable it would hold its value equal to a gold standard Mercedes Benz, or Elon Musk would personally buy it back from you at a guaranteed price. Promoted as the company that would singularly displace all those stodgy, backward, "old economy" car companies, forever sweeping their hydrocarbon-swilling, lung-choking, polar bear drowning products off the face of this planet (not to Mars, either )

Tesla is not a technology company. It's a teeny vehicle assembly company trying to build cars in Bay Area Freemont, California, which has to be one of the all time most expensive places on the face of the earth to locate an auto factory. But they are a Technology Company, so such irrelevancies are relegated to the status of an inconsequential nuisance. Until Tesla wakes up and figures out otherwise I think it will continue to have great difficulty fixing its chronically and now comically underperforming vehicle manufacturing operations. A Silicon Valley tech company culture seems poorly equipped to fix a Detroit style assembly line productivity problem. Like asking Tim Cook to advise a Presidential Panel on how to grow the iron ore industry.

But maybe I am completely wrong. If so, and a mainline auto manufacturer buys Tesla it sure as hell won't be for its Freemont assembly plant. It will be for its unique technology related Intellectual Property, superior to whatever that potential buyer then has or feels it can reasonably develop. Unfortunately I don't share your optimism for that outcome for two reasons: 1) I don't think Tesla has enough unique IP to attract a buyer; and 2) even it does, how is a Ford, GM or Daimler trading at a carmaker cashflow multiple going to do an accretive acquistion of such a richly valued "tech" company? It would be instant devaluation suicide.

No danger Tesla will get "destroyed" by a mainline car company. It's doing a fine job all on its own...

(btw, I would love to have a Model S as a fairweather, tool around on the weekend car. That would be a cool toy)

Edit added: I really have to beat this Nate thing into submission. It's outta control

 

[steingar]

The problem with electric cars is that most electricity is still made with fossil fuels, thus its a zero sum game. That said, with an electric car you can just as readily derive your power from a green source and it will still run. But I don't see us moving away from fossil fuels in my lifetime, so I honestly don't see the point. Same goes for aircraft. If you want to lower an aircraft's carbon footprint make it more efficient. They did it to mine in 1962, and it still gets better mileage than most of your cars going 140 knots.

 

[PaulS]

The problem with electric cars is that most electricity is still made with fossil fuels, thus its a zero sum game. That said, with an electric car you can just as readily derive your power from a green source and it will still run. But I don't see us moving away from fossil fuels in my lifetime, so I honestly don't see the point. Same goes for aircraft. If you want to lower an aircraft's carbon footprint make it more efficient. They did it to mine in 1962, and it still gets better mileage than most of your cars going 140 knots.

But it's not a zero sum game, the electric car is much more efficient, that seems to be panning out in the numbers from an energy point of view, add in your own solar power, moving around can be almost free. The problem is the subsidies that are required to keep it going.

 

[GRG55]

The problem with electric cars is that most electricity is still made with fossil fuels...

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Maybe the answer is a logistics issue. Something like automatically replaced batteries, done at stations much like or repurposed gas stations where depleted batteries are removed and recharged batteries are installed in the time it takes to fill a gas tank.

Tesla already has (had?) a battery-swap station at Harris Ranch, CA. However, it rarely gets (got?) used. I'm saying it this way because I'm not sure it's even open any more. There was a Supercharger right outside, and most folks opted to simply spend the 1/2 hour charging the car, stretch their legs, go to the bathroom, etc. rather than get the 90-second battery swap.

It's not a big deal, stopping every 3-4 hours - Most of us do that in our gas cars, too. It's just a different mindset than we're all used to with a piston-pounder.

Likely much easier to have/rent a generator on a mini trailer which can be towed by the car. Think of it as an on demand hybrid power source. No need to carry it majority of the time; just hook up when you need longer range, forgot to charge the car....

You would need a fairly sizable generator. Something similar to this exists in the BMW i3 REx (Range Extender) - There's a gas engine (a BMW motorcycle engine) that fires up when the battery hits 5%-ish and drives a genset to make electricity to go farther. However, once the battery is fully depleted, it can't give you the full amount of power you'd need for all situations - If you start driving up a mountain on the interstate, you're going to regret it. In fact, you may not be able to maintain a normal highway speed (75) even on relatively level ground. To get that amount of power, you need a car-sized engine, and carrying around that much extra weight kind of defeats the purpose.

Advertised battery range for electric cars reminds me of advertised max cruise airspeeds for piston GA aircraft back in the good ol' days. Achievable only if one is pointed somewhat downhill.

It's actually not that difficult to exceed them by a significant margin (20% or more), but as you note, it's dependent on an awful lot of variables, many of which ICE vehicles are also susceptible to, but aren't noticed so much when range is usually 350+ miles.

(What's the best thing about a Tesla battery pack fire in winter? Underfloor heat )

I would guess Tesla is achieving increased range with perhaps larger capacity battery packs, steadily improving software management of the charge/discharge cycle, lighter weight of the Model 3 car, an effort to reduce the number of Wh/mile, and maybe a way to more consistently use all of the available battery (down to 1% charge?) without inducing repeated range-anxiety pucker-factor in the owners? Nothing frightens a guy more than not being able to "go the distance".

They've been quite successful at increasing the efficiency of the Model 3 - The drag coefficient is also very low. The owners I know are getting more than 4 miles/kWh. (or less than 250 Wh/mi) Impressive.

Back on the efficiency of batteries, you have to also consider the energy lost in the charging and discharging cycle. Most batteries are capable of discharging between 60 to 70% of the energy put into them. So yes the electric motor may have 90% thermal efficiency, but the batteries do not.

Battery * Motor efficiency is running around 65-70%, yes.

So when we consider the overall efficiency of an electric system, and the potential "greeness" you have an entire energy chain to consider. With an ICE it is essentially one step, fuel to work. Current engines range from 30 to 40 % efficient in that conversion. Now an electric vehicle has four potential points of energy loss ( at least). Initial generation, transmission to use point (power lines etc), charging and discharging the battery, and finally the electric motor. This example assumes that the initial energy refinement and transport to where the fuel is converted to the power source is similar. Here that would be the gas station or power plant. For electric people have to remember the charge needs to come from somewhere.

For gasoline vehicles, the cycle pretty much goes extraction, transportation (of crude), refining, transportation (again, of gasoline) to a terminal, transportation to the station (the least efficient transportation step, since it's generally done via truck in small amounts), and of course pumping at each stage.

For electric vehicles, it really depends on the power mix. Coal, nuclear, natural gas, hydro, wind, solar, and the lesser-used methods all have a different cost, but the advantage is in transportation - There are line losses and transforming losses, but the overall process is pretty efficient.

The key is, even with 100% Coal (the worst of the above), it's still a little in favor of the electric car. And while the grid keeps getting cleaner and in turn doing the same for electric cars, a gas car's best day is the day you drive it off the lot.

Personally, I'm content with the current petro model for transportation except for its susceptibility to price spikes. I think $2 a gallon for gas is a good price for most. $3 a gallon is getting too expensive IMHO and really makes me consider buying electric.

I swear, someone has it out for me. I buy a plug-in hybrid and the gas prices go down 25% in the next 4 months, I buy a gasser and they go up 20% in the next 4 months! I can't win!

We have a municipal electric company here, a year or two ago they had "special" running where you could buy a Nissan Leaf brand new for about $12000, and they would give you a high speed charger that they could control for about $300. You had to pay to get it installed, about another $200 to $300 bucks. I almost did it but, I have enough cars and didn't want to have to deal with another. That car had about a 200 mile range IIRC, and would have served about 90% of my driving needs.

Nissan Leaf a couple years ago would have only had something like 72 mile range. Still works for 90% of driving needs, but really sucks hard on that last 10%!

To your point about efficiency, I used to feel the same way as you do about it, until I started looking at it. My cost per kwh for charging a car, worst case, today, is 12.5 cents per kwh. The model 3 long range has a 75 kwh battery and can go, supposedly, 310 miles on that, fully charged, I don't know if the battery fully discharges or not, but I assume that is figured into the range. So if I assume the charger is 80% efficient (this number should be pretty conservative from what I read), it will take 94 kwh to charge my battery. If I do the math, it will take $11.75 worth of electricity to charge my car. Versus a 30 mpg car (which again is probably conservative for a comparable car that can go 0 to 60 in 5.1 seconds like the model 3) which would use 10 gallons of $2.90/gallon gas ( current price near me) it's less than half to run the electric car. It's hands down more energy efficient as the price I pay has all the electric grid inefficiencies built into it.

Yep. I would only add that charging via 240V is generally in the 85%-90% efficient range (75-80% for 120V). The Model 3 has a battery pack just a tad over 80kWh, with about 75 usable so your calculations are right in the ballpark.

I find in general that the gas car costs about 3x per mile what the electric one does, and that's not counting maintenance, which is much more in favor of the EV.

Gasoline EPA numbers are the same type of dream numbers, but you have to set a basis somewhere and supposedly they are "scientific".

Yep. It's a consistent methodology anyway. If you want real dream numbers, the NEDC can give them to you.

The reason I said I was "impressed" in that prior post is because I figured they would be toast long before this.

Elon Musk makes some rather outlandish, unbelievable statements sometimes, but his ability to execute on them (timeframe notwithstanding) makes betting against him a bad idea.

But I think my experience is also the outcome for millions of our workers. They will never be able to afford these expensive green toy baubles, and most of them are probably doing a version of what I do, but not by choice - driving a well used gasoline engine Toyota Corroded because they have to get to their jobs so they can feed their families and pay their taxes

Most of our "workers" can't afford to buy any new cars. Luckily, some of the non-Tesla electrics are depreciating so quickly early on that they'll be able to afford to buy a commuter EV that's newer than an otherwise-equivalent gas car, and save on operation costs.