Yay! More beautiful scenery thanks to the world saving EV.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Larry in TN said:
Figure around 3 to 4 kWh per mile.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure you have that backwards. It should be 3 to 4 miles per kWh.
Country Flier said:
I'm leery of any range info Tesla provides:
Click to expand...
OK, here's "real-world testing" that says 3.8 miles per kWh, which correlates to 43.9 miles of range added if charging 48 amps for 1 hour.
www.edmunds.com

2024 Tesla Model Y Prices, Reviews, and Pictures | Edmunds

Research the 2024 Tesla Model Y with our expert reviews and ratings. Edmunds also has Tesla Model Y pricing, MPG, specs, pictures, safety features, consumer reviews and more. Our comprehensive coverage delivers all you need to know to make an informed car buying decision.
www.edmunds.com
 
asicer said:
Pretty sure you have that backwards. It should be 3 to 4 miles per kWh.

OK, here's "real-world testing" that says 3.8 miles per kWh, which correlates to 43.9 miles of range added if charging 48 amps for 1 hour.
www.edmunds.com

2024 Tesla Model Y Prices, Reviews, and Pictures | Edmunds

Research the 2024 Tesla Model Y with our expert reviews and ratings. Edmunds also has Tesla Model Y pricing, MPG, specs, pictures, safety features, consumer reviews and more. Our comprehensive coverage delivers all you need to know to make an informed car buying decision.
www.edmunds.com
Click to expand...
That's pretty close to exactly what I'm getting in my model 3, both in consumption and charging. In Florida (flat and warm).
 
Regardless of any environmental aspect, I'd think that being able to charge at home/work would make the number of stations required to support X number of EV vehicles favorable over what we have with gas stations now.
 
kayoh190 said:
Regardless of any environmental aspect, I'd think that being able to charge at home/work would make the number of stations required to support X number of EV vehicles favorable over what we have with gas stations now.
Click to expand...

For those with garages or driveways. Are apartment buildings/complexes going to install a charging port at every parking space? How about all of the city folks who street park wherever they find a space? Are we going to have a charger installed every 20ft along the city streets?
 
There are plenty of EVs parked on the street in my 'hood with wires running out to them.

This thread inspired me to look into the Niro EV this morning, which looks like it would make a fine kid taxi/grocery getter/in town car. Tempted to pick up an 2009ish Lexus for cheap as all the yuppies upgrade to Teslas...
 
Country Flier said:
I'm leery of any range info Tesla provides:
Click to expand...
The range you are talking about is the "EPA Range". It is determined using the EPA's testing procedures which produce a range figure that is accurate at around 55-60mph. The EPA procedures also leave a lot of variables up to the manufacturer which really makes that number useless. You can compare the ranges of different models of the same brand but you can't compare from brand to brand and the different manufacturers may have used different options.

The Tesla navigation is very accurate at predicting range based on the actual road conditions and speed limits. That range will vary dramatically depending on the speed at which you drive. Country roads at 45mph will have a very long range, more than the EPA rating. Highway at 80mph will be significantly less because, as with any vehicle, drag increases as the square of velocity.

What seems to cause the most confusion is that you can have your remaining range displayed next to the battery icon on the screen. That is EPA range and is NOT adjusted based on the navigation entered or your recent driving history. That data is easily accessible on the car's screen, but it is not the number that is displayed. People are used to cars that show range based on your recent driving history and assume that that's what they are looking at. Best practice is to "tap" that range number and toggle it to percentage. That is much more meaningful data. If range is a concern, navigate to your destination and you'll get very accurate estimates and suggested charging stops, if required.

The energy consumption is expressed in Wh/mi. I've used 260-264 Wh/mi since new. You convert to kWh/mi by taking the reciprocal and moving the decimal place. That's for a Model 3 LR. The Performance will be higher; RWD, lower. Model Y a little bit higher than the comparable Model 3. Those are real numbers that you can use for your calculations.

asicer said:
Pretty sure you have that backwards. It should be 3 to 4 miles per kWh.
Click to expand...
Yep! I thought about that after going to bed last night. Wasn't sure if I typed it backwards or not.

For those with garages or driveways. Are apartment buildings/complexes going to install a charging port at every parking space? How about all of the city folks who street park wherever they find a space? Are we going to have a charger installed every 20ft along the city streets?
Click to expand...
Yes, I think will we.

Apartments and condos are already installing charging. There are many providers that can install systems which will handle the billing to each individual user.

This video, just out a few days ago, shows a company that is installing curb-side charging in Manhattan.

 
MauleSkinner said:
EV owners are antisocial? ;)
Click to expand...
yeah....I can't recall the last time I had a conversation with anyone at a gas pump....but just last weekend I had a few conversations with nice folks at some fast chargers while on my Thanksgiving road trip.

I've been on several longish road trips in my EV, so I have "stopped for gas" as some of you put it earlier, maybe a couple dozen times..... but most of my charging is done at home, by far.
Yeah, it sort of shifts the need to not having gas stations on every corner in your neighborhood...to instead of having them at say rest areas on the highway....

so for the need to totally rebuild the entire grid....
Mine is a 2019 model Audi, so no longer the most efficient design by far compared to more modern models on the market.... but as a point of reference.... I have my EVSE at home hard wired on a 60A circuit, but I have it set to current limt to 48A...so yeah, it's potentially the largest single point draw in my house, but generally speaking the demand to the grid from charging a car is an hour or two out of a day. and it's on par with doing a load or two of laundry
....but it's not in the same planet with the energy demand of the AC running all day + laundry + using the stove + running the pool pump all concurrently....and the grid can handle all that times everyone in my neighborhood at the same instant
so yeah, the grid is not really a concern.

My typical daily drive is on the order of 35 miles round trip...maybe call it 40 on the top end for an occasional side trip or re-route
looking over a sample of 7 days of recent charging, the average is approx 16.18 kWh per day, delivered over a period of about 1-1/2 hours to get the battery back up to 80%
I generally plug in and charge when I get home from work every day....so yeah, right when everyone else is getting home, cooking, doing laundry, etc.... but it's a big nothing-burger to set the timer to charge at 2AM or whenever if that ever comes to be a need..... I just have no reason or incentive to do that now, and would rather have my battery topped back up to 80% just for emergencies and convenience....
 
kayoh190 said:
Regardless of any environmental aspect, I'd think that being able to charge at home/work would make the number of stations required to support X number of EV vehicles favorable over what we have with gas stations now.
Click to expand...
It’s rare that those who point out external costs for renewables (such as this parking area for charging) do so for our petroleum based fuels. Not just the massive direct subsidies- it’s the carrier group we station near the strait of Hormuz 24/7/365, the support of brutal, bloodthirsty absolute monarchs in KSA, etc. those cost us in absolute dollars, and in the betrayal of our founding principles.
*ALL* men are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. Unless we want less expensive oil from their kingdom. Then…
 
SFDukie said:
It’s rare that those who point out external costs for renewables (such as this parking area for charging) do so for our petroleum based fuels. Not just the massive direct subsidies- it’s the carrier group we station near the strait of Hormuz 24/7/365, the support of brutal, bloodthirsty absolute monarchs in KSA, etc. those cost us in absolute dollars, and in the betrayal of our founding principles.
*ALL* men are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. Unless we want less expensive oil from their kingdom. Then…
Click to expand...
Interesting. Instead of doing something to rectify the brutal treatment of people we should do stupid stuff to avoid dealing with them at all.

I don't think those people would magically be better off without our money. Quite the opposite.

EV's are absolutely NOT the solution to the problem you bring up. In fact, there's a lot of evidence that things just as bad if not worse are happening in mining the rare earth metals necessary to make them work well.
 
Salty said:
EV's are absolutely NOT the solution to the problem you bring up. In fact, there's a lot of evidence that things just as bad if not worse are happening in mining the rare earth metals necessary to make them work well.
Click to expand...
LFP batteries take care of that. No rare earth metals at all. Over half of the Tesla being produced today have LFP batteries.
 
Larry in TN said:
LFP batteries take care of that. No rare earth metals at all. Over half of the Tesla being produced today have LFP batteries.
Click to expand...
Yeah, lithium isn't a problem :rolleyes1:
 
Salty said:
Interesting. Instead of doing something to rectify the brutal treatment of people we should do stupid stuff to avoid dealing with them at all.

I don't think those people would magically be better off without our money. Quite the opposite.

EV's are absolutely NOT the solution to the problem you bring up. In fact, there's a lot of evidence that things just as bad if not worse are happening in mining the rare earth metals necessary to make them work well.
Click to expand...
Nowhere did I say- or imply- “we should do x instead of doing something to rectify brutal treatment..”
I did say that external costs of petroleum are infrequently discussed by those pointing out drawbacks of renewable energy sources.

I stand by that statement. Don’t put words in my mouth, please.
 
I'm going to get me a Tesla. Way more efficient energy consumption than a gas car per mile driven. If you don't want one, don't get one. As far as EVs being mandated soon? You get what you vote for.
 
SFDukie said:
It’s rare that those who point out external costs for renewables (such as this parking area for charging) do so for our petroleum based fuels. Not just the massive direct subsidies- it’s the carrier group we station near the strait of Hormuz 24/7/365, the support of brutal, bloodthirsty absolute monarchs in KSA, etc. those cost us in absolute dollars, and in the betrayal of our founding principles.
*ALL* men are endowed by their creator with unalienable rights. Unless we want less expensive oil from their kingdom. Then…
Click to expand...
^This, 1000%. The amount of moral gymnastics we've had to perform over the last 50+ years in order to keep gas cheap is alarming. ADD: It's a real cost, even if not financially quantifiable.
 
At best, all of this just addresses the symptoms. No matter how it's sliced, we're burning up resources of all sorts faster than they're being replaced. My take is that being sidetracked by attempts to reduce use of fossil fuels just lets us push the core problem down the road further, and will eventually make the problem worse. What we need is an economic solution that leads to a gradual and sustainable global decrease in population. Without that, we're just like any other species, and we'll continue growing until there's nothing left but sand in our big spherical cage.

Huh. Reading the above, that was pretty dark even for me. But I think accurate. Time for some iced tea.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
^This, 1000%. The amount of moral gymnastics we've had to perform over the last 50+ years in order to keep gas cheap is alarming. ADD: It's a real cost, even if not financially quantifiable.
Click to expand...
And that you should be thankful for. Without crude oil, you have no renewables.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
^This, 1000%. The amount of moral gymnastics we've had to perform over the last 50+ years in order to keep gas cheap is alarming. ADD: It's a real cost, even if not financially quantifiable.
Click to expand...
I'm SURE that those events won't ever occur with resources needed for battery production. /s
 
Any EV start a hospital parking garage on fire yet? Any apartment parking garages?

i wonder how many have anything resembling realistic fire prevention and fire fighting provisions in them.

Maybe we can finally get realistic parking? Parking cars in standard sized stalls is a freaking fire hazard don't matter if its an EV or ICE.
 
Last edited:
L J Donelson said:
We should all remember that ephemeral foretelling of times to come with Sly Stallone and Sandra Bullock called 'Demolition Man' where the premiere dining establishment of the future is Taco Bell.

Yeah, it was comic relief in a B-rate movie, but the laugh is worth remembering that moment.
Click to expand...
I like Taco Bell's food, but it doesn't always like me. It used to be that sticking to the ones that are at a freeway exit worked, but that doesn't seem to be reliable anymore.
 
Brad W said:
...I generally plug in and charge when I get home from work every day....so yeah, right when everyone else is getting home, cooking, doing laundry, etc.... but it's a big nothing-burger to set the timer to charge at 2AM or whenever if that ever comes to be a need..... I just have no reason or incentive to do that now, and would rather have my battery topped back up to 80% just for emergencies and convenience....
Click to expand...
Where I live, there's a rate discount during off-peak hours. However, it's a pretty small discount, last time I looked.
 
azblackbird said:
And that you should be thankful for. Without crude oil, you have no renewables.
Click to expand...
Without horses, it probably wouldn't have been possible to build the first automobiles and trucks. There are still horses, but they are no longer the dominant mode of transportation.

Without steam engines, I'm guessing that it wouldn't have been possible to drill the first oil wells. Or maybe they used horses for that, too.
 
Albany Tom said:
At best, all of this just addresses the symptoms. No matter how it's sliced, we're burning up resources of all sorts faster than they're being replaced. My take is that being sidetracked by attempts to reduce use of fossil fuels just lets us push the core problem down the road further, and will eventually make the problem worse. What we need is an economic solution that leads to a gradual and sustainable global decrease in population. Without that, we're just like any other species, and we'll continue growing until there's nothing left but sand in our big spherical cage.

Huh. Reading the above, that was pretty dark even for me. But I think accurate. Time for some iced tea.
Click to expand...

I think I'm starting to see the explanation for Fermi's paradox, and why we're not hearing radio signals from technologically advanced civilizations elsewhere in the universe. We have only had radio-communication technology for a tiny percentage of the age of the Earth, and with the ever-present "us versus them" attitudes throughout humanity's history, and the persistent march toward ever-more destructive wars as examples, it's possible that very few advanced civilizations have survived long enough for us to hear them, let alone develop a practical means of interstellar travel (if that's even possible).

Sometimes I think we're just monkeys with nukes.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
When you’re dealing with essentially religious zealots that have no rulebook and even less technical understanding, you were going to have a hard time winning.
Click to expand...
It getting to look more and more like that describes most of humanity. :(
 
SoonerAviator said:
I'm SURE that those events won't ever occur with resources needed for battery production. /s
Click to expand...
That's fair. No country is squeaky clean, but I'll bet we're going to be hard pressed to find many worse international partners than KSA. Or at least few that are as out of alignment with our morals.

These are the people who intentionally bombed hospitals in Yemen with our weapons, clandestinely funded ISIS through their royal family, chopped up a US resident with a bonesaw in Turkey, and arguably are the single most responsible people for 9/11. In a world where they weren't sitting on cheap, easy to pump oil, they would have already gone the direction of Iraq or Afghanistan.

The idea we can't upset those guys for fear that gas spikes a couple bucks makes my stomach turn. EDIT: not only that, but we have to SUPPORT them. Ugh.

Anyways, the world keeps turning.
 
ArrowFlyer86 said:
That's fair. No country is squeaky clean, but I'll bet we're going to be hard pressed to find many worse international partners than KSA. Or at least few that are as out of alignment with our morals.

These are the people who intentionally bombed hospitals in Yemen with our weapons, clandestinely funded ISIS through their royal family, chopped up a US resident with a bonesaw in Turkey, and arguably are the single most responsible people for 9/11. In a world where they weren't sitting on cheap, easy to pump oil, they would have already gone the direction of Iraq or Afghanistan.

The idea we can't upset those guys for fear that gas spikes a couple bucks makes my stomach turn. EDIT: not only that, but we have to SUPPORT them. Ugh.

Anyways, the world keeps turning.
Click to expand...
No disagreement here. I just know we'd be parking fleets of Naval/Air Force resources off the coast of whatever country has valuable resources in the name of "protecting freedom". We have fought wars over things far less threatening to us than oil, and I'm sure we'll find something else to spill blood/money over in the future. Politicians are good at that.
 
bnt83 said:
Any EV start a hospital parking garage on fire yet? Any apartment parking garages?
Click to expand...
Not that I'm aware of. Have any ICE cars done so?

Examining data from Tesla’s global fleet, Australia, Sweden, and Norway (the country with the highest concentration of electric cars), the paper found “the probability of being caught in an EV fire appears overall to be much lower than for petrol or diesel cars.” The Guardian allows that the numbers could change as more people start to drive electric.

But it notes, “There are millions of electric cars on roads around the world, so some data on the prevalence of fires is emerging.”

Tesla reports, “The number of fires on U.S. roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars.” Tesla, we’d note, has a financial incentive to embellish and a history of exaggeration.

We’re not aware of any conflicts of interest, however, for the Australian defense establishment or Scandinavian governments. They back up the claim.

In Norway, the research found, “there are between four and five times more fires in petrol and diesel cars, according to the Directorate for Social Security and Emergency Preparedness.” The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency similarly found 68 fires per 100,000 cars of all types but just 3.8 fires per 100,000 EVs or hybrids.

Australia’s Department of Defence researched the same question and found that “there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine cars.”
-------------------------

Palmpilot said:
I think I'm starting to see the explanation for Fermi's paradox, and why we're not hearing radio signals from technologically advanced civilizations elsewhere in the universe.
Click to expand...
I just heard another, that I had not heard before.

We've only been broadcasting strong radio signals for about 100 years yet we're already moving away from high-power broadcasting in favor of the low-power, local, higher frequency radios of our connected devices. With the inverse square law, our RF fingerprint is already shrinking.

It could be that the period where a civilization is broadcasting high-power RF, which would still be detectable after many light-years of travel, is relatively short.
 
Morgan3820 said:
When you’re dealing with essentially religious zealots that have no rulebook and even less technical understanding, you were going to have a hard time winning.
Click to expand...
We need more comprehensive science education.

That a HS diploma doesn’t require chemistry and physics courses is “democratic malpractice” in the 3rd decade of the 21st century.

As a nation, we need to ensure independence from China on resources such as Rare earth elements. It would be easy to do.
 
Larry in TN said:
Not that I'm aware of. Have any ICE cars done so?

Examining data from Tesla’s global fleet, Australia, Sweden, and Norway (the country with the highest concentration of electric cars), the paper found “the probability of being caught in an EV fire appears overall to be much lower than for petrol or diesel cars.” The Guardian allows that the numbers could change as more people start to drive electric.

But it notes, “There are millions of electric cars on roads around the world, so some data on the prevalence of fires is emerging.”

Tesla reports, “The number of fires on U.S. roads involving Teslas from 2012 to 2021 was 11 times lower per mile than the figure for all cars.” Tesla, we’d note, has a financial incentive to embellish and a history of exaggeration.

We’re not aware of any conflicts of interest, however, for the Australian defense establishment or Scandinavian governments. They back up the claim.

In Norway, the research found, “there are between four and five times more fires in petrol and diesel cars, according to the Directorate for Social Security and Emergency Preparedness.” The Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency similarly found 68 fires per 100,000 cars of all types but just 3.8 fires per 100,000 EVs or hybrids.

Australia’s Department of Defence researched the same question and found that “there was a 0.0012% chance of a passenger electric vehicle battery catching fire, compared with a 0.1% chance for internal combustion engine cars.”
-------------------------


I just heard another, that I had not heard before.

We've only been broadcasting strong radio signals for about 100 years yet we're already moving away from high-power broadcasting in favor of the low-power, local, higher frequency radios of our connected devices. With the inverse square law, our RF fingerprint is already shrinking.

It could be that the period where a civilization is broadcasting high-power RF, which would still be detectable after many light-years of travel, is relatively short.
Click to expand...
Probably need a bit more metadata on this one. How many of the ICE fires were while the vehicle was off/at rest? Whether my car burns after a wreck is of lesser consequence (assuming I'm no longer in it) than when I'm at home asleep and it lights my house on fire. I'm not implying EVs are somehow worse about that from a pure risk standpoint, but I don't think just leaving it at "there were X number of ICE fires each year" gives us the best picture of what we're trying to observe.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top