Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 04 Apr 2016, 11:21 am

This is a very good piece on Tesla. Be warned, it's extremely long, but a great read nonetheless:

http://waitbutwhy.com/2015/06/how-tesla ... -life.html

If I could afford it I'd certainly buy one. The electric cars that Elon Musk is making (maybe not so much the competitors) are fantastic vehicles. Really high spec with incredibly low running costs and far fewer parts that could go wrong. The range is not such an issue these days, and it will become steadily less of an issue as time goes by. He's building a network of superchargers across the western world where you can drive in, connect up your battery and have it recharged in about 20-30 mins. There's a few that I'm aware of here in Sheffield, and the UK is a very small market for Tesla at present. As more people buy the cars then more filling stations will want to install them. There's also I believe plans in place for near enough instantaneous recharging where you drive up and a machine extracts your battery and replaces it with a freshly charged one, letting you drive off again in about the time it would take to fill up with fuel. Not that a 30 minute break is such a downer on a long journey, I'll often look to do that anyway if I'm driving long distance. And let's face it, how often do you have to do a 220 mile round trip ? For the vast majority of journeys you make the range won't even be a factor.

As for ramping up production, if anybody can manage it then Elon Musk is surely the man. Keep in mind his back story. He made $200 million dollars when he sold Paypal and ploughed the lot into simultaneously setting up a brand new car company making electric vehicles and also a private space launch company at the exact same time as he was going through a messy divorce. Both are now roaring success stories. He's just built what he calls a 'gigafactory' in New Mexico which is set to make more lithium-ion batteries than all the other facilities on earth put together. This man thinks BIG.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 04 Apr 2016, 11:48 am

Fate
Further, it's just silly to act like e-cars are a "solution" to our energy problems


Well they are a large part of eliminating CO2 into the atmosphere. Global Warming being an existential threat whereas energy scarcity is not.
And in fact, since the development of batteries an superchargers are part of his electric car business it is going to contribute to energy efficiency because Musk's batteries and super chargers will increase the efficacy of the electricity grid.
By charging batteries in the middle of the night when demand is lowest, and using them during the day to take ones' house off the grid.... The peak demand on the grid is reduced.
And that's the key in managing an efficient electric grid, lowering peak demand.
As well, houses that have his batteries and super chargers can install local solar panels and wind turbines to compliment their energy usage and further reduce their dependency on the grid.
Musk's E cars, depend on their eventual success on the network of superchargers that he is building out across North America and the rest of the world... So its a dual strategy that seems quite compelling.

Fate
That's decent, but I would not buy a car with that range

But 276,000 people did in 3 days...
Honda Accord will sell about 350,000 in 365 days... Despite having a range of 470 miles or so.
So maybe there's other factors more important.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Apr 2016, 2:01 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Further, it's just silly to act like e-cars are a "solution" to our energy problems


Well they are a large part of eliminating CO2 into the atmosphere. Global Warming being an existential threat whereas energy scarcity is not.


Sure, because electricity generation is CO2 free. I mean, who in the world would permit CO2 to be a by-product of energy production?

As well, houses that have his batteries and super chargers can install local solar panels . . .


Yeah, an anecdote: a friend of mine just moved from CA to TX. He said he installed solar panels on his CA home. For years, he sold electricity to the local power company. However, they recently changed things. He would have had to pay $6K this year. $6K!

The funny thing about saving the environment: the government always punishes you anyway.

Musk's E cars, depend on their eventual success on the network of superchargers that he is building out across North America and the rest of the world... So its a dual strategy that seems quite compelling.


Meh, it's fine. However, the revolution will come with cheap/free energy, not e-cars.

But 276,000 people did in 3 days...


Yes, and I know one: he's a lobbyist for a green group. I love it when tree-huggers put their money where their mouths are because it's so rare that they do.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Apr 2016, 2:11 pm

Any value to a discussion on government subsidies for the well off? People who can buy $35,000 cars are getting subsidies. People who cannot afford cars are not.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Apr 2016, 2:22 pm

Ray Jay wrote:Any value to a discussion on government subsidies for the well off? People who can buy $35,000 cars are getting subsidies. People who cannot afford cars are not.


No, because it's perfectly fine TO SAVE THE PLANET!

Anyone who doesn't agree would like to see millions plunged below the rising oceans and probably drowns kittens.

There are some things that cannot be rationally discussed and foremost among them are "settled science."

Yes, I know you were asking about subsidies, but this is all about SAVING THE PLANET!!!!

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some kittens to drown.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4888
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 04 Apr 2016, 3:03 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some kittens to drown.


For sequestration to work you have to bury the cat under the ocean.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 04 Apr 2016, 3:11 pm

Ray Jay wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:
Ray Jay wrote:
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some kittens to drown.


For sequestration to work you have to bury the cat under the ocean.


I swear it will be done.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15954
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 05 Apr 2016, 5:17 am

Ray Jay wrote:Any value to a discussion on government subsidies for the well off? People who can buy $35,000 cars are getting subsidies. People who cannot afford cars are not.

Could people unable to afford a car be getting different subsidies? I hear the very poor get "welfare" and food stamps.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Apr 2016, 6:03 am

Fate
Sure, because electricity generation is CO2 free. I mean, who in the world would permit CO2 to be a by-product of energy production?

Since cars currently are 31% of Co2 emissions....the direct benefit of eliminating the cars is immediate.
Generation of electricty by fossil fuels accounts for 37% of US CO2 emissions.
Your right that electricity in the US is currently mostly coal generated which isn't good. But by limiting peak demand, use of coal and natural gas can be reduced and the base out put from nuclear and renewables, can be shifted by use of the battery technology Musk has developed. Charge at night and use the batteries during the day and less coal, oil and natural gas generation is required.
This is a strategy that can be used by tall buildings in urban centers particularly well. Whether they use Musk's batteries or compressed air storage.
It has as much to do with adapting the structure of the Internet to the structure of the energy grid as the technology itself.

A diversity of electricity sources helps both to ensure the reliability of the U.S. electric grid and to meet federal and state environmental objectives. Nuclear energy is an essential part of that mix. It is the only generating option that provides 24/7, large-scale electricity production, industry-leading efficiency (greater than 90 percent capacity factor) and zero carbon emissions during the production of electricity.
In 2014, nuclear energy accounted for 62.9 percent of carbon-free sources of electricity. Hydropower accounted for 19.9 percent; wind, 14.4 percent; geothermal, 1.3 percent; and solar, 1.4 percent.
Overall, nuclear energy produced 19.5 percent of U.S. electricity supply (797,000 gigawatt-hours) and prevented 595 million metric tons of CO2 in 2014. Without nuclear power plants in 30 states, carbon emissions from the U.S. electric sector would be approximately 25 percent higher.
By reducing peak energy requirements, generation by coal and particularly natural gas generation can be reduced.


rayjay
Any value to a discussion on government subsidies for the well off? People who can buy $35,000 cars are getting subsidies. People who cannot afford cars are not.

People in major metropolitan areas who cannot afford or prefer not to operate cars, like in New York City, ride on subsidized subways and buses. They also help to reduce green house gases besides reducing congestion.

Fate
There are some things that cannot be rationally discussed and foremost among them are "settled science."

The science can be rationally discussed. And it has been, especially as more and more research data comes in to confirm the science behind global warming.
There really is only one small community in the world where this is not accepted as fact.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Apr 2016, 8:18 am

rickyp wrote:rayjay
Any value to a discussion on government subsidies for the well off? People who can buy $35,000 cars are getting subsidies. People who cannot afford cars are not.

People in major metropolitan areas who cannot afford or prefer not to operate cars, like in New York City, ride on subsidized subways and buses. They also help to reduce green house gases besides reducing congestion.


So, government should subsidize the purchasing of e-cars by the rich and the poor can eat it. Nice.

Fate
There are some things that cannot be rationally discussed and foremost among them are "settled science."

The science can be rationally discussed. And it has been, especially as more and more research data comes in to confirm the science behind global warming.
There really is only one small community in the world where this is not accepted as fact.


Wrong. As more and more data comes in, more and more questions are raised about "settled science." It is folly to presume we understand the complexities of the Earth. The planet was much hotter according to "settled science" long before all our CO2 entered the atmosphere.40 years ago, we were told an "ice age" was coming. That was "settled science" too.

It's funny how "settled science" seems to accord so well with the progressive agenda, which just so happens to favor government funding of environmental science. If one didn't know better, one might believe there was a symbiotic (and "settled") relationship.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Apr 2016, 8:47 am

Fate
Wrong. As more and more data comes in, more and more questions are raised about "settled science."

Of course you make this claim with no supporting evidence. There is none.
You are absurd

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.

The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.

Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained.

What about the remaining uncertainties? Shouldn’t we wait for 100% certainty before taking action? Outside of logic and mathematics, we do not live in a world of certainties. Science comes to tentative conclusions based on the balance of evidence. The more independent lines of evidence are found to support a scientific theory, the closer it is likely to be to the truth. Just because some details are still not well understood should not cast into doubt our understanding of the big picture: humans are causing global warming.

In most aspects of our lives, we think it rational to make decisions based on incomplete information. We will take out insurance when there is even a slight probability that we will need it. Why should our planet’s climate be any different?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11144
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 05 Apr 2016, 8:48 am

Fate
Wrong. As more and more data comes in, more and more questions are raised about "settled science."

Of course you make this claim with no supporting evidence. There is none.
You are absurd

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.

The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.

Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained.

What about the remaining uncertainties? Shouldn’t we wait for 100% certainty before taking action? Outside of logic and mathematics, we do not live in a world of certainties. Science comes to tentative conclusions based on the balance of evidence. The more independent lines of evidence are found to support a scientific theory, the closer it is likely to be to the truth. Just because some details are still not well understood should not cast into doubt our understanding of the big picture: humans are causing global warming.

In most aspects of our lives, we think it rational to make decisions based on incomplete information. We will take out insurance when there is even a slight probability that we will need it. Why should our planet’s climate be any different?

james wright
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 3405
Joined: 12 Jun 2006, 2:01 am

Post 05 Apr 2016, 9:51 am

Your right that electricity in the US is currently mostly coal generated which isn't good. But by limiting peak demand, use of coal and natural gas can be reduced and the base out put from nuclear and renewables, can be shifted by use of the battery technology Musk has developed.


That's not true actually. It varies state by state of course, but overall the proportion of US electricity produced from coal is only 39%, and it's declining year on year (mostly due to fracking and the collapse in natural gas prices, but also thanks to the mass rollout of solar energy). Even if it was all coal-powered though, electric cars would still be cleaner than normal cars because energy production in large-scale power plants is vastly more efficient.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 05 Apr 2016, 10:42 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Wrong. As more and more data comes in, more and more questions are raised about "settled science."

Of course you make this claim with no supporting evidence. There is none.


Emphasis added,

You are absurd


So, if there is ANY data contra to the AGW theory, then I'm right and you are . . . a fool, but what else is new?

Skeptics often claim that the science of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is not “settled”. But to the extent that this statement is true it is trivial, and to the extent that it is important it is false. No science is ever “settled”; science deals in probabilities, not certainties. When the probability of something approaches 100%, then we can regard the science, colloquially, as “settled”.

The skeptics say that results must be double-checked and uncertainties must be narrowed before any action should be taken. This sounds reasonable enough – but by the time scientific results are offered up to policymakers, they have already been checked and double-checked and quintuple-checked.

Scientists have been predicting AGW, with increasing confidence, for decades (indeed, the idea was first proposed in 1896). By the 1970s, the scientific community were becoming concerned that human activity was changing the climate, but were divided on whether this would cause a net warming or cooling. As science learned more about the climate system, a consensus gradually emerged. Many different lines of inquiry all converged on the IPCC’s 2007 conclusion that it is more than 90% certain that anthropogenic greenhouse gases are causing most of the observed global warming.

Some aspects of the science of AGW are known with near 100% certainty. The greenhouse effect itself is as established a phenomenon as any: it was discovered in the 1820s and the basic physics was essentially understood by the 1950s. There is no reasonable doubt that the global climate is warming. And there is also a clear trail of evidence leading to the conclusion that it’s caused by our greenhouse gas emissions. Some aspects are less certain; for example, the net effect of aerosol pollution is known to be negative, but the exact value needs to be better constrained.

What about the remaining uncertainties? Shouldn’t we wait for 100% certainty before taking action? Outside of logic and mathematics, we do not live in a world of certainties. Science comes to tentative conclusions based on the balance of evidence. The more independent lines of evidence are found to support a scientific theory, the closer it is likely to be to the truth. Just because some details are still not well understood should not cast into doubt our understanding of the big picture: humans are causing global warming.

In most aspects of our lives, we think it rational to make decisions based on incomplete information. We will take out insurance when there is even a slight probability that we will need it. Why should our planet’s climate be any different?


To "prove" me wrong, you provide a quote with no facts and not even a link.

I googled it https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?n=350

That was posted in 2010.

So, there is NO data since 2010 that would cause any scientist to question AGW? EVERY model and prediction has been met/fulfilled?

Really?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15954
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 05 Apr 2016, 12:42 pm

Sassenach wrote:
Your right that electricity in the US is currently mostly coal generated which isn't good. But by limiting peak demand, use of coal and natural gas can be reduced and the base out put from nuclear and renewables, can be shifted by use of the battery technology Musk has developed.


That's not true actually. It varies state by state of course, but overall the proportion of US electricity produced from coal is only 39%, and it's declining year on year (mostly due to fracking and the collapse in natural gas prices, but also thanks to the mass rollout of solar energy). Even if it was all coal-powered though, electric cars would still be cleaner than normal cars because energy production in large-scale power plants is vastly more efficient.
Indeed. Which has two effects - one is less emissions. The other is reduced demand overall for fuel, which will make it cheaper for everyone.