-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Anti-Tesla Gibberish
- Thread starter bonnie
- Start date
rolosrevenge
Dr. EVS
CyberDutchie
Active Member
Ugg... the Video section is auto tweeted as is the News section. We put the News section on auto-moderation since people kept posting junk in there. Perhaps the video section should be auto-moderated as well.
Tweet was deleted and the link provided in it is likely dead at this point since the post was moved.
Tweet was deleted and the link provided in it is likely dead at this point since the post was moved.
Skimmed though the video. Very lame. Lots of out right lies. Btw, those Fisker fires had nothing to do with the battery pack.
Why does Youtube allow this crap to be posed without an author, and without comment to refute the misinformation. I believe that complaints should be registered with youtube!
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I disagree, I don't think youtube should be able to force people to allow commentary, any more than say blogspot should force authors to allow commentary. As much as I detest this misinformation campaign I think free speech and anonimity are more important.
palmer_md
Member
Well when I went there this morning and could not comment or give a thumbs down, I noted that I could "flag as inappropriate", so I did so. I felt it was quite inappropriate.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Preemptive warning, I feel a Petersen FUD fest brewing:
Feel free to click without giving JP a penny, not his article: http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/1...ve-trains-for-class-8-trucks#comment-16062691
dsmith2189
Active Member
Like the commercials say "if it's on the internet, it must be true" and by the way I am a French model. Bonjour. if any women are out there looking for a french model, PM me.
Last edited:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Let's see, 150K miles, at 20mpg for a luxury performance sedan, is 7,500 gallons, x 33kWh/gallon of energy = 247,500 kWh of total energy, the entire process of extraction and refining is around 80% efficient, so 20% of 247,500 kWh = 49,500 kWh used.
I wonder where this new study gets such a high figure for energy used in battery production, if what Petersen claims is accurate. This study http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2010/10/68288.pdf in Table 8 on page 30 shows an EV that is 1159lbs heavier than the ICE used for comparison, which puts the pack size on par with the Model S, and they come up with 12,637 MJ or 3,510 kWh of energy used to build the pack, which works out to 41kWh per kWh of battery, about 10 times less than Petersen claims.
I wonder where this new study gets such a high figure for energy used in battery production, if what Petersen claims is accurate. This study http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2010/10/68288.pdf in Table 8 on page 30 shows an EV that is 1159lbs heavier than the ICE used for comparison, which puts the pack size on par with the Model S, and they come up with 12,637 MJ or 3,510 kWh of energy used to build the pack, which works out to 41kWh per kWh of battery, about 10 times less than Petersen claims.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Looking at this study http://www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/B/644.PDF which was coauthored by the same person who did the other study I linked I see where Petersen gets his numbers. Page 30 Figure 4 shows lithium at 1.7MJ used for each Wh of capacity, or 472 Wh per Wh, 472kWh per kWh. I don't know why there is such a huge discrepancy between the two studies, though I do see that they use 75 Wh/kg of energy density which is at least half of the pack level energy density that Tesla actually has. Using 150 Wh/kg then it would be 236kWh per kWh, 20,060 kWh energy used for the whole 85 kWh pack.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
The 85kWh pack takes 20,050 kWh of energy to create.
Maybe. (That's using all energy inputs from mining to finished pack, if the study figures are correct, and using my revised density of 150 Wh/kg for the pack instead of the 75 Wh/kg used in the study.) As a reference using 320 Wh/mi the S would consume 48,000 kWh in 150,000 miles. Now the full honest comparison of EV vs ICE would subtract the energy used to create the ICE and it's accessories, including multispeed transmission, which should be more than the much lighter electric motor single speed gear reduction. I think the fuel creation energy I previously calculated for petroleum goes more towards a comparison of operational efficiency as opposed to construction efficiency. Even adding the energy used to build the pack to the operational energy for 150K miles equals 454 Wh/mi, compared to a 20 mpg ice which is 1,650 Wh/mi. from the tank to wheels alone.
Don't know if this counts as 10 words or less :redface:
Maybe. (That's using all energy inputs from mining to finished pack, if the study figures are correct, and using my revised density of 150 Wh/kg for the pack instead of the 75 Wh/kg used in the study.) As a reference using 320 Wh/mi the S would consume 48,000 kWh in 150,000 miles. Now the full honest comparison of EV vs ICE would subtract the energy used to create the ICE and it's accessories, including multispeed transmission, which should be more than the much lighter electric motor single speed gear reduction. I think the fuel creation energy I previously calculated for petroleum goes more towards a comparison of operational efficiency as opposed to construction efficiency. Even adding the energy used to build the pack to the operational energy for 150K miles equals 454 Wh/mi, compared to a 20 mpg ice which is 1,650 Wh/mi. from the tank to wheels alone.
Don't know if this counts as 10 words or less :redface:
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
And heeeeerrrrrsss Johnny! http://seekingalpha.com/article/126...-on-solar-power-integration-and-electric-cars
Basically he's just pushing his "40,000 kWh used to build a Tesla 85 kWh pack" nonsense.
Similar threads
