Tesla catches fire, burns down garage, put out, reignites burns for 4 hours at shop.

[Nitroz]

EV cars are great but I can't get over the quiet ride and I prefer to hear my car and row gears, I know a lost art. I'm old.

The only manual EV I have seen is a Porsche some guy modified and that still does not get you the ICE noises that I enjoy.

 

[wweiss]

I'm 69. Grew up driving my father's old double clutching 4x4 Oshkosh beast on our nursery fields. I had arms and a left leg like Popeyes's in the 8th grade... However, I also love new high tech and being a beta tester for new stuff.

 

[markr6]

Here in Indiana we have it all figured out. We burn food to power our cars. E85. A big joke.

 

[Wonder]

Until we have gone 100 % non fossil fuel Electric and Hybrid vehicles are a wast of time. It's a money making game nothing more. The overall footprint of E vehicles from cradle to grave is a magnitude higher than a normal ICE powered vehicle. Some studies show up to 10 times as much pollution is created in the production, use and later recycling of a Electric/Hybrid vehicle than a late model ICE vehicle when looking at the big picture. So if being green is a feel good for you think again.

 

[xxo]

Until we have gone 100 % non fossil fuel Electric and Hybrid vehicles are a wast of time. It's a money making game nothing more. The overall footprint of E vehicles from cradle to grave is a magnitude higher than a normal ICE powered vehicle. Some studies show up to 10 times as much pollution is created in the production, use and later recycling of a Electric/Hybrid vehicle than a late model ICE vehicle when looking at the big picture. So if being green is a feel good for you think again.

True.



Currently in the US, 63.5 % of electricity is generated burning fossil fuels (mostly natural gas and coal), 19.3% from nuclear and 7% from hydro power - all sources the green energy people are against. These together generate 89.8% of our electricity.

We only get 6.6% from wind and 1.6% from solar, the latter about the same as we get from burning wood (1%), landfill gas (0.3%), garbage (0.2%) and other waste (0.1 %).

And all of that is just for generating electricity, we also use a lot of fossil fuels for heating.

But none of this matters to people who are convinced that they are saving the planet with their EV – emotion outweighs facts.

 

[MidnightDistortions]

I don't think EVs will take over ICE anytime soon. A lot of people fear about the battery capacity (range) and the long recharge times. Not to mention cold weather isn't good for the batteries. Also I'm sure many don't want to plug their car in the same energy source as their refrigerator. I sure don't. I like cheap electricity and I don't think replacing gas with a battery/electric will solve our energy problems. The electric grid is pretty loaded now so I can't see a whole lot of EV adoption. Plus most people who don't buy new end up looking for gas. Used EVs don't sell well lowering their resale value.

 

[alpg88]

actually Tesla holds its value better than Lexus. and Lexus has one of the lowest, if not the lowest depreciation in the segment.
i went to KBB and Tesla s was on average 10k more expensive than Lexus gs450h of the same year, both have similar price when new

 

[vadimax]

True.



Currently in the US, 63.5 % of electricity is generated burning fossil fuels (mostly natural gas and coal), 19.3% from nuclear and 7% from hydro power - all sources the green energy people are against. These together generate 89.8% of our electricity.

We only get 6.6% from wind and 1.6% from solar, the latter about the same as we get from burning wood (1%), landfill gas (0.3%), garbage (0.2%) and other waste (0.1 %).

And all of that is just for generating electricity, we also use a lot of fossil fuels for heating.

But none of this matters to people who are convinced that they are saving the planet with their EV – emotion outweighs facts.

Sorry, but you substitute notions. Normally this is being called ignorance, not emotion

 

[alpg88]

you are absolutely correct, driving an EV that has 10 times the carbon print of an ice vehicle, while thinking you are doing favor to environment is indeed an ignorance.

i personally would love to get a teslaS, like my brother in law has, i'd have it already, but my condo parking spot does not come with power line to charge it. but i make no illusions about environmental impact, i just like instant torque of an electric motor, and no shifts.

 

[wweiss]

Let's read the actual report on this issue?

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul...ner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

 

[vadimax]

Let's read the actual report on this issue?

https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/defaul...ner-Cars-from-Cradle-to-Grave-full-report.pdf

Sorry, but this libel is politically engaged and full of lies. As usual the author was hoping that not a single engineer will read it. WRONG! Most likely I am the first engineer to read it. I will not mention all the garbage written there. Just a sample: page 16 where it claims that EV battery and power plant take only 15% of total vehicle weight.

Here we go: https://www.quora.com/Why-are-electric-cars-so-heavy-The-Nissan-Leaf-is-1-470-kilos

418.64/1470*100=28.5%

And this article is the same "precise" in absolutely every respect it touches... Russians name this method: "Let's imagine we've got a spherical horse in vacuum..."

Next: http://insideenergy.org/2015/11/06/...sappears-between-a-power-plant-and-your-plug/ — power plant average efficiency is 35%. Distribution network adds some 4% of losses to the initial amount of generated energy. So we've got 33.6% efficiency BEFORE we even started to charge EV batteries.

What next? Propaganda-driven Wikipedia claims that Li-Ion batteries are 99% effective in a charge/discharge cycle. Oh, really?! Thank you that there still exists NASA with some labs still not destroyed by socialists. NASA has ran some tests for its internal purposes:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/27_leo_life_test_absl_sony_18650_gdudley.pdf

where we may see this graph:

Do you see 99%? No? — Me either.

At the same time direct injection ICE gas engines have 35% efficiency, MAN S80ME-C7 diesel marine engine has demonstrated 54.4% efficiency (45% on average for diesels), and Toyota is ready to release a new 2L gas engine with 40% efficiency.

 

[wweiss]

Regardless the liberal or socialist or political labels - let's calmly balance EV vs ICE. It seems anger trumps critical thinking...

The NASA graph is data more than 12 years old - there has to have been positive change over time.

The same analysis of the carbon cost of producing and delivering a gallon of fuel would be useful. Ditto the total environmental cost of those gallons before they're even burned.

The carbon cost of building an ICE vehicle is high, too. Thousands of parts machined, delivered and assembled for each ICE vehicle. Required routine maintenance of the ICE power plant requires more oil and recycling. Many thousands of mechanics working long hours to service ICE car power plants have a carbon footprint as well.

Going forward as a world society, there are two data points that matter - carbon cost of manufacture and carbon cost per mile. Other costs and efficiencies come with progress for both ICE and EV. But the money is on EV.

Would you rather be stuck for hours in the Lincoln Tunnel with EV's or ICE's? Would you bequeath to your children the relatively clear air of Beijing

 

[HKJ]

The carbon cost per mile depends on where you live, in Norway it is very close to zero (And they buy many EV's), in Denmark where I live it is also on the low side.

 

[vadimax]

The carbon cost per mile depends on where you live, in Norway it is very close to zero (And they buy many EV's), in Denmark where I live it is also on the low side.

In 2014 wind turbines produced about 42% of electric power in Denmark. Now it might be 45-50%.

Now this: http://www.greenwichneighborsunited.com/wind-turbines-kill-up-to-39-million-birds-a-year/ — wind turbines kill up to 39,000,000 birds and bats in US alone every year. So I may make an assumption that EVs of Denmark are "fueled" with blood...

 

[vadimax]

I do not understand you people. You either skipped the elementary school or politically engaged propaganda has killed your brain. Do you know what carbon dioxide is? What moron has told you that it is "evil"?

I may explain you what the life is on this planet: the sun delivers energy then CARBON DIOXIDE and water through a process of photosynthesis are being turned into sugar and OXIGEN. If you remove CARBON DIOXIDE all plants on land and in the water DIE. If they die, you breath all oxygen to zero and then inevitably YOU DIE. But much faster you will die from hunger, because no carbon dioxide — no plants. No plants — no food. But before you die from hunger you certainly will enjoy several "prosperous" decades of canibalism... Those who will be ready to kill.

Low carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to starvation, high carbon dioxide leads to prosperity.

 

[Monocrom]

Hey, some of us get it. You did an excellent job refuting a blatant propaganda piece. But as is typical, rather than just acknowledging that fact and looking for more research into one's own doggedly held belief on the matter; you got a polite reply laced mostly with denial. Don't let it upset you. Basic human psychology at work there. There are methods to show someone is wrong, and to get them to genuinely reconsider what they believe in. But outwardly presenting facts and being blatantly honest doesn't work.

 

[wweiss]

This "discussion" is all about carbon monoxide levels - where did the carbon dioxide rant come from? This thread is going down the usual rabbit hole.

Everyone is 100% right except for me. Sorry I'm such a moron to have wasted all these words. You're right, I'm wrong.

I'm out.

 

[Kestrel]

I'm out.

I concur.