Tesla, the absolute best car!

Everskyward said:
Interesting article. What I want to know is what method they are using to compute the emissions of gas powered cars. Are they just using the emissions which come out of the tailpipe or are they using the total emissions from when the oil is drilled, transported to refineries, refined then transported to your local gas station. If they aren't doing this then they are comparing apples to oranges.
Click to expand...


Add in those same energy numbers for mining the coal...
 
denverpilot said:
6ef5ada8e486605c828e45fb857145e9.jpg
Click to expand...

Why not build clean power as well? The EV consumer can use whatever grade electricity that gets supplied. Besides, a modern coal plant and EV will still come out cleaner than a fossil petroleum vehicle. Now if you start raising algae instead of drilling for oil, no worries, it's all common era carbon, but it's still noxious and just one product. Save it for airplanes for now. No reason everything can't be electric, no reason you can't piggyback sea and polluted water distillation and transportation all for the same dollar and peak our production efficiency 24x7.
 
Henning said:
Why not build clean power as well? The EV consumer can use whatever grade electricity that gets supplied. Besides, a modern coal plant and EV will still come out cleaner than a fossil petroleum vehicle. Now if you start raising algae instead of drilling for oil, no worries, it's all common era carbon, but it's still noxious and just one product. Save it for airplanes for now. No reason everything can't be electric, no reason you can't piggyback sea and polluted water distillation and transportation all for the same dollar and peak our production efficiency 24x7.
Click to expand...

The only way for an all electric car to have a lower carbon footprint than gas cars is for the electricity to be made in a nuke plant.
 
CTLSi said:
The only way for an all electric car to have a lower carbon footprint than gas cars is for the electricity to be made in a nuke plant.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. An internal combustion engine operates at about 27% thermal efficiency, a last generation coal or gas plant operates at about 33% thermal efficiency, modern gas cogeneration plants can operate around 50% thermal efficiency. The only way for the EV to have as bad a foot print is if it was getting electricity from a 1920s coal plant or a home wood burning generator system.

OTOH, I can generate electricity at home cleanly as well. I can have a vehicle that I can say **** you to all the energy companies. That is why the energy producers don't want to see hydrogen. It makes 'Mom & Pop' energy providers and experimenters profitable.

But yeah, by all means, lets build a thousand Thorium reactors all to the same plans and build them next to large sources of salt and contaminated water.
 
Last edited:
Great discussion here. I think electric cars are definitely the future for some things. I'm fine with anyone buying electric if that's what you want, I'd just prefer you do it with your money and not mine.
 
EppyGA said:
Great discussion here. I think electric cars are definitely the future for some things. I'm fine with anyone buying electric if that's what you want, I'd just prefer you do it with your money and not mine.
Click to expand...

It's just being fair. Your gasoline is subsidized by the US Military expenses. So they give a tax break and a bit or infrastructure subsidy for your EV.

When you encourage EVs, you encourage energy independence which eliminates the need to fight foreign wars and we can afford to expand a clean electric infrastructure. It is way past time to move on from petroleum.
 
Last edited:
peppy said:
I agree. 6KWH is roughly 21,000 btu which is what it takes.

You have to be careful when looking at sources. I see kw used when kWh should be used in numerous articles.
Click to expand...

As an engineer, I'm always happy when a physicist agrees with me! :)
 
Henning said:
Why not build clean power as well? The EV consumer can use whatever grade electricity that gets supplied...
Click to expand...

Another idea I've seen discussed is using hydrogen to fuel cars. It's similar to electric cars to the extent that a wide variety of energy sources can be used to produce the hydrogen. Anyone have any thoughts and/or info on the feasibility of that?
 
Henning said:
It's just being fair. Your gasoline is subsidized by the US Military expenses. So they give a tax break and a bit or infrastructure subsidy for your EV.

When you encourage EVs, you encourage energy independence which eliminates the need to fight foreign wars and we can afford to expand a clean electric infrastructure. It is way past time to move on from petroleum.
Click to expand...

We are pumping more oil now than ever. In fact the USA is pumping more oil than Saudi Arabia now. The advances in drilling have also given us access to tons of new oil, and oil shale is everywhere.

I remember in the 70s. the greenies were predicting oil would deplete by the year 2000. They were off, like they are on everything else, by a magnitude and more.

We also have more coal than any nation on earth by a wide margin. Liquified coal is a bonus in our energy picture.

Oil remains, as long as the greenies keep us from nukes, the most economical and plentiful energy resource on the planet.
 
CTLSi said:
They were off, like they are on everything else, by a magnitude and more.
Click to expand...

Engage in sweeping generalizations much? :rofl:

Oil remains, as long as the greenies keep us from nukes, the most economical and plentiful energy resource on the planet.
Click to expand...

This might be a good place to note that James Hansen, one of the leading proponents of global warning theory, has come out in favor of nuclear power.
 
CTLSi said:
The only way for an all electric car to have a lower carbon footprint than gas cars is for the electricity to be made in a nuke plant.
Click to expand...

Again, as it has been asked before...
Cite. Your. Reputable. Source.
In your next post, please do this, or admit that you are flat-out wrong.
 
Palmpilot said:
Another idea I've seen discussed is using hydrogen to fuel cars. It's similar to electric cars to the extent that a wide variety of energy sources can be used to produce the hydrogen. Anyone have any thoughts and/or info on the feasibility of that?
Click to expand...

It's not just feasible, it's necessary.
 
No, hydrogen might have some kind of future, but hydrogen fuel cells are a dead end.

"The fuel of the future - and it always will be".

It can't even compete with battery storage today, is super inefficient, very costly and volatile to handle (hydrogen will leak and creep through any known material). Ask yourselves why big oil are so hot under the collar about hydrogen? Because they'd just love to get into yet another proprietary fuel they can control the making and distribution of. Just like gas. Governments love it too, because they can easily tax it. They can't tax electricity as efficiently.

But the truth is that the fuel cell is a terribly inefficient and expensive idea. It's not the future of transportation, energy storage is.
 
stratobee said:
No, hydrogen might have some kind of future, but hydrogen fuel cells are a dead end.

"The fuel of the future - and it always will be".

It can't even compete with battery storage today, is super inefficient, very costly and volatile to handle (hydrogen will leak and creep through any known material). Ask yourselves why big oil are so hot under the collar about hydrogen? Because they'd just love to get into yet another proprietary fuel they can control the making and distribution of. Just like gas. Governments love it too, because they can easily tax it. They can't tax electricity as efficiently.

But the truth is that the fuel cell is a terribly inefficient and expensive idea. It's not the future of transportation, energy storage is.
Click to expand...

Are fuel cells the only way to use hydrogen fuel? (This is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know.)
 
Last edited:
stratobee said:
No, hydrogen might have some kind of future, but hydrogen fuel cells are a dead end.

"The fuel of the future - and it always will be".

It can't even compete with battery storage today, is super inefficient, very costly and volatile to handle (hydrogen will leak and creep through any known material). Ask yourselves why big oil are so hot under the collar about hydrogen? Because they'd just love to get into yet another proprietary fuel they can control the making and distribution of. Just like gas. Governments love it too, because they can easily tax it. They can't tax electricity as efficiently.

But the truth is that the fuel cell is a terribly inefficient and expensive idea. It's not the future of transportation, energy storage is.
Click to expand...

You actually came upon the key issue, with hydrogen they lose control because now every little operator with a windmill can produce an energy product that can be sold direct to consumer, or consumed at home with no third party charging for it.
 
I don't think we'll ever see cars running on hydrogen or any kind of compressed gas for main street people.:nonod: Because basically people are idiots and compressed gas requires maybe one or two more brain cells in your head to deal with it's fill up characteristics and it's volatility.

Gasoline has dangers too, but go ask Granny to fill up your propane tank in your old Ford truck, and see what a stare you get. :rolleyes2:

I would love to have a Ngas/switchable to diesel/unleaded truck/car if I had a pump in my garage or on the farm. We're swimming in Ngas.
 
txflyer said:
I don't think we'll ever see cars running on hydrogen or any kind of compressed gas for main street people.:nonod: Because basically people are idiots and compressed gas requires maybe one or two more brain cells in your head to deal with it's fill up characteristics and it's volatility.

Gasoline has dangers too, but go ask Granny to fill up your propane tank in your old Ford truck, and see what a stare you get. :rolleyes2:

I would love to have a Ngas/switchable to diesel/unleaded truck/car if I had a pump in my garage or on the farm. We're swimming in Ngas.
Click to expand...

I remember when grannies didn't fill up gas tanks either. There were nice young men to do that. And clean your windshield and check your oil. Hydrogen has other problems (energy density being one) but once people were used to using a propane filling station I don't think it's be much more dangerous than gasoline.

John
 
jsstevens said:
I remember when grannies didn't fill up gas tanks either. There were nice young men to do that. And clean your windshield and check your oil. Hydrogen has other problems (energy density being one) but once people were used to using a propane filling station I don't think it's be much more dangerous than gasoline.

John
Click to expand...

Propane filling stations are in widespread use across Australia, people aren't blowing up. Hydrogen fuel cel vehicles are driving around Los Angeles, Iceland, and Norway, all not blowing up. People who have absolutely no clue of what is already being done are commenting on what can't be done. Typical.
 
Sorry meant fossil fuels. Coal is used for base load. Natural gas for peaker plants. As you can see, the rest doesn't make up 10%. And if you look at peak usage months it's even lower. That EIA graph is also from 2009. It actually got worse as demand has gone up. What's fun is much larger percentage of Xcel customers have signed up to pay higher prices for wind power, and didn't read the fine print that Xcel is under no obligation to actually use wind power when not available. They're just paying higher rates.
 
denverpilot said:
Sorry meant fossil fuels. Coal is used for base load. Natural gas for peaker plants. As you can see, the rest doesn't make up 10%. And if you look at peak usage months it's even lower. That EIA graph is also from 2009. It actually got worse as demand has gone up. What's fun is much larger percentage of Xcel customers have signed up to pay higher prices for wind power, and didn't read the fine print that Xcel is under no obligation to actually use wind power when not available. They're just paying higher rates.
Click to expand...

I attached an April 2014 chart. It doesn't appear to have gotten worse. Renewables now provide a greater percentage of power than natural gas.
 
denverpilot said:
Sorry meant fossil fuels. Coal is used for base load. Natural gas for peaker plants. As you can see, the rest doesn't make up 10%. And if you look at peak usage months it's even lower. That EIA graph is also from 2009. It actually got worse as demand has gone up.
Click to expand...


But the bottom graph ends in 2013. You can see that after a little blip up after 2009 that the downward trend of coal use has continued. You can also see the "other renewables" line has gone up from zero in about 2003 to 10% in 2013. That's quite a big jump in 10 years.

In any case, the articles posted up in the thread made it clear that the advantage electric cars have over gas powered cars depends on location and you can't use Colorado (or West Virginia) as representative of the country.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
But the bottom graph ends in 2013. You can see that after a little blip up after 2009 that the downward trend of coal use has continued. You can also see the "other renewables" line has gone up from zero in about 2003 to 10% in 2013. That's quite a big jump in 10 years.

In any case, the articles posted up in the thread made it clear that the advantage electric cars have over gas powered cars depends on location and you can't use Colorado (or West Virginia) as representative of the country.
Click to expand...


No disagreements but we'll see if those graphs continue that direction when it's no longer subsidized. Or if they retreat to a holding point somewhere below the (cheaper) natural gas. Basically right now here in CO it's just an expensive fad.
 
Everskyward said:
But the bottom graph ends in 2013. You can see that after a little blip up after 2009 that the downward trend of coal use has continued. You can also see the "other renewables" line has gone up from zero in about 2003 to 10% in 2013. That's quite a big jump in 10 years.

In any case, the articles posted up in the thread made it clear that the advantage electric cars have over gas powered cars depends on location and you can't use Colorado (or West Virginia) as representative of the country.
Click to expand...

Talk about making it up. Green tech has NEVER become or is becoming viable. Windmills, solar farms, electric cars and the other niche tech exist WHOLLY due to subsidies. Despite billions shoveled out of government debt dozens of solar and battery companies have folded anyway. Losing the taxpayer cash.

Add the GM Volt to that fail list despite the hefty taxpayer underwriting.
Oh yea, Tesla buyers also get that same gift from taxpayers.

What is really happening is new oil reserves are being found, and coal is being attacked by wrong-headed energy policy that is spiking utility costs all over the USA thanks to Obamas and his EPA Nazis.

But then, remember, he said he wanted to spike energy costs. That's one of the few things that he promised that is coming to pass.
 
Last edited:
 
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
None of those articles back up your claim that the green industry exist solely due to subsidies.
Click to expand...

Every link supports every point I made. Guys like you are a laugh. Simply ignoring the facts does not help your viewpoint. The reason you sit in ignorance is exactly due to that attitude.

The green cult has been blunted. Happily most people now understand the entire premise of global warming is a snake oil game. You goofs have been caught gaming the data, and the doom and gloom predictions from the green clowns have not come to pass.

You are welcome to waste your money on the Tesla and any other impractical and over priced toy, but don't pretend you are changing the planet. You make just as much carbon footprint as anyone else, likely even more given the hypocrisy of private jet burning ghouls like Al Gore.
 
Last edited:
CTLSi said:
Every link supports every point I made. Guys like you are a laugh. And no one need provide you with proof you will simply ignore. The reason you sit in ignorance is exactly due to that attitude.

The green cult is exactly that, koolaiders slurping from their little pitcher of lies.
Click to expand...
Guys like you are a laugh too. You make sweeping statements about industries you don't like without backing up your claims. Sure "green" industries get subsidies. So do many others. I know that solar, wind, etc. will never be able to power the electric grid in total and that they have negative impact like all industries. But the disdain you have for these them is humorous.
 
CTLSi said:
Every link supports every point I made. Guys like you are a laugh. Simply ignoring the facts does not help your viewpoint. The reason you sit in ignorance is exactly due to that attitude.

The green cult has been blunted. Happily most people now understand the entire premise of global warming is a snake oil game. You goofs have been caught gaming the data, and the doom and gloom predictions from the green clowns have not come to pass.

You are welcome to waste your money on the Tesla and any other impractical and over priced toy, but don't pretend you are changing the planet. You make just as much carbon footprint as anyone else, likely even more given the hypocrisy of private jet burning ghouls like Al Gore.
Click to expand...

Welcome back No Joy. The SZ has been wondering where you've been... I think?
 
Henning said:
They exist because people want them, the subsidies exist to give the people what they want.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Subsidies exist because special interests (lobbyists) pay for votes. Its an artifact of our corrupt system of government.

The 'people' don't want most of what government puts out.
 
CTLSi said:
Wrong. Subsidies exist because special interests (lobbyists) pay for votes. Its an artifact of our corrupt system of government.

The 'people' don't want most of what government puts out.
Click to expand...

Oh, yes, most people back clean green energy and are willing to pay extra for it. 80% of people understand that it's necessary to have clean air and water. The other 20% think it's more necessary to have money.
 
Just for the record: Tesla did get help from a government loan when they started, but they paid it off with interest, early.
 
JimNtexas said:
Just for the record: Tesla did get help from a government loan when they started, but they paid it off with interest, early.
Click to expand...

And to complete the record, each Tesla sold awards the buyer with a fat taxpayer subsidy. Like those who can afford a Tesla need a tax break, right? It's whats known was rich guy welfare.
 
CTLSi said:
And to complete the record, each Tesla sold awards the buyer with a fat taxpayer subsidy. Like those who can afford a Tesla need a tax break, right? It's whats known was rich guy welfare.
Click to expand...

Everyone who buys gasoline has the priced subsidized by at least $0.50/gal based on military expenditures used to secure that oil resource. That doesn't include various tax breaks the oil production companies use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top