Anti-Tesla Gibberish

[richkae]

Wait, whose argument are you referring to here? Certainly not JRP3's, though that's what's implied.

I'm talking about the articles on Seeking Alpha that are making bogus claims about the amount of energy it takes to create a battery pack.
It is irrelevant. They are trying to distract from the fact that a battery pack + all the energy consumed to drive the car will cost less than the gasoline to drive a comparable gasoline car.

 

[Dan5]

Even if it takes 40,000 kwhr.. so what, it's becomes energy positive at 25000 miles against a Porsche Panamera, it's competitor.
He must think people are complete fools and do not know how to check facts:

40,000 + 0.31 miles = 36.6 kwhr/gal* miles /19 mpg

Solve for miles
40,000 = (36.6/19 - 0.31) * X miles

40,000/1.62 = 24747 miles

 

[AWDtsla]

LOL they are so clueless they choose to focus on the battery. Why not focus on the entirely aluminum car? Refining aluminum ore is intense electric process. Let's just take a stab at it - 3500 lbs of aluminum. Let's assume 7kWh per pound. 24.5MWh just to refine the aluminum to make the body.

Why don't they focus on this? Because they are idiots...and it doesn't create FUD about battery technology.

 

[scriptacus]

LOL they are so clueless they choose to focus on the battery. Why not focus on the entirely aluminum car? Refining aluminum ore is intense electric process. Let's just take a stab at it - 3500 lbs of aluminum. Let's assume 7kWh per pound. 24.5MWh just to refine the aluminum to make the body.

Why don't they focus on this? Because they are idiots...and it doesn't create FUD about battery technology.

It could also be because a ton of other manufacturers use a lot of aluminum parts as well.
http://www.paintgages.com/List-of-Car-Manufacturers-who-use-Aluminum-Body-Panels-s/51.htm

 

[Grendal]

This is such an absurd argument. I just fought it on ABG too. I have no doubt this study is attempting to take every amount of energy for battery making into account but completely dismissing all the steps needed to build each part in an ICE engine. How about each spark plug? Add in transmission fluid. What does it take to make an air filter? Fundamentally an ICE car and an electric car are made of the same materials except for the drive train and an electric drive train is much much more simple. I doubt there is any realistic way to numerically capture all the energy needed to make all the parts. It would be a silly undertaking. My intincts (the best I've got to go with for something this complex) say that the energy put in to making the Tesla EV drive train is going to be close to equal with the energy needed to make a luxury level gas/diesel drive train.

 

[hcsharp]

Can you sum this up in 10 words or less?

It takes ~20,050kWh of energy to produce an 85kWh battery. JP claims double that, then fails to compare it to the cost of a gas engine + transmission. Over 10 words but he also underestimates the battery life by almost half.

LOL they are so clueless they choose to focus on the battery. Why not focus on the entirely aluminum car? Refining aluminum ore is intense electric process. Let's just take a stab at it - 3500 lbs of aluminum. Let's assume 7kWh per pound. 24.5MWh just to refine the aluminum to make the body.

Why don't they focus on this? Because they are idiots...and it doesn't create FUD about battery technology.

I was waiting for someone to make this point. Aluminum is much more energy intensive to manufacture than steel. And frankly when I first heard Tesla's plans to make almost everything out of aluminum I wondered about the additional impact of energy to manufacture. Since then I've learned that most aluminum is smelted in places where there is an excess (or close to it) of electric energy. This is often hydro during off-peak hours. That's why Canada produces a lot of aluminum and exports it to the US and elsewhere.

The biggest problem with JP's argument isn't that he over-estimated the energy to produce the battery, hopelessly underestimated the battery life, and failed to subtract the energy to produce a gas engine and related components. It's that the energy to produce the battery is irrelevant compared to the energy it stores and releases. If it mattered, why doesn't he compare the energy to produce the windshield to the amount of energy it stores? He would have to argue that automobiles are a net loss because they have a windshield. The battery is just as much a part of the car as the windshield. It's irrelevant.

 

[CyberDutchie]

And heeeeerrrrrsss Johnny! http://seekingalpha.com/article/126...-on-solar-power-integration-and-electric-cars

Classic!

 

[eledille]

I was waiting for someone to make this point. Aluminum is much more energy intensive to manufacture than steel. And frankly when I first heard Tesla's plans to make almost everything out of aluminum I wondered about the additional impact of energy to manufacture. Since then I've learned that most aluminum is smelted in places where there is an excess (or close to it) of electric energy. This is often hydro during off-peak hours. That's why Canada produces a lot of aluminum and exports it to the US and elsewhere.

It's often said that aluminium is energy intensive, but so is steel. But with steel production, the energy input is hidden.

Steel production requires 515 kg of coking coal per ton of steel produced. The energy content of coking coal is 24 MJ/kg, or 6.7 kWh/kg. So the coal input alone is 3.5 kWh per kg steel. Hydro's aluminium plants on average require 13.8 kWh/kg Al. Their new technology, which is in full scale testing, reduces the requirement to 12.5 kWh/kg. Energy and climate change - Norsk Hydro

The whole point of using aluminium for transportation is that you need less of it, because it's stronger per kg. 50 % of the metal weight can be saved by switching to aluminium from steel, so if 1 ton of steel was required, you can get away with using 500 kg aluminium. A car using 1 ton of steel requires 3500 kWh of energy due to metal production, while a car using 500 kg of aluminium requires 6900 kWh - only about twice as much. Technology in full scale testing can reduce that to 6250.

Aluminium can be recycled infinitely, and this requires only 5 % of the energy compared to production from ore. It is easier to recycle, because impure recycled steel is too difficult to purify. Recycled steel can not be used for all applications, and only a small amount of scrap steel can be added to steel produced from ore without changing its characteristics significantly. Aluminium is always alloyed heavily anyway, so impurities from e.g. copper are often useful.

Also, steel production requires carbon and necessarily releases CO[sub]2[/sub], while aluminium production can use entirely emission free electricity, and electricity for aluminium production is already "greener" than average, because aluminium production is the best way to export excess energy. Norway, Iceland and Canada export excess hydro or geothermal energy in this way.

And as you say, looking at the battery in isolation is meaningless. The interesting thing is how much energy the average car requires during its production and lifetime. EVs do very well in that comparison, even before considering local pollution or the possibility of CO[sub]2[/sub] free operation in the future.

 

[hcsharp]

Thanks for this excellent analysis. I hadn't even thought of the fact that you only need a fraction as much Al as steel for the same strength.

It's often said that aluminium is energy intensive, but so is steel. But with steel production, the energy input is hidden.

Steel production requires 515 kg of coking coal per ton of steel produced. The energy content of coking coal is 24 MJ/kg, or 6.7 kWh/kg. So the coal input alone is 3.5 kWh per kg steel. Hydro's aluminium plants on average require 13.8 kWh/kg Al. Their new technology, which is in full scale testing, reduces the requirement to 12.5 kWh/kg. Energy and climate change - Norsk Hydro

The whole point of using aluminium for transportation is that you need less of it, because it's stronger per kg. 50 % of the metal weight can be saved by switching to aluminium from steel, so if 1 ton of steel was required, you can get away with using 500 kg aluminium. A car using 1 ton of steel requires 3500 kWh of energy due to metal production, while a car using 500 kg of aluminium requires 6900 kWh - only about twice as much. Technology in full scale testing can reduce that to 6250.

Aluminium can be recycled infinitely, and this requires only 5 % of the energy compared to production from ore. It is easier to recycle, because impure recycled steel is too difficult to purify. Recycled steel can not be used for all applications, and only a small amount of scrap steel can be added to steel produced from ore without changing its characteristics significantly. Aluminium is always alloyed heavily anyway, so impurities from e.g. copper are often useful.

Also, steel production requires carbon and necessarily releases CO[sub]2[/sub], while aluminium production can use entirely emission free electricity, and electricity for aluminium production is already "greener" than average, because aluminium production is the best way to export excess energy. Norway, Iceland and Canada export excess hydro or geothermal energy in this way.

And as you say, looking at the battery in isolation is meaningless. The interesting thing is how much energy the average car requires during its production and lifetime. EVs do very well in that comparison, even before considering local pollution or the possibility of CO[sub]2[/sub] free operation in the future.

 

[Dan5]

Omg, Hell frozen over- petersen admits the energy payback period for a 85 kwhr battery is less than the number of miles that you would drive a car. Well now isnt that a kick in the pants. Of course he slants it as a negative, BUT still he reversed is claim that the energy payback for an EV is not worth it.

If he flip flops do we remind him of his past indescrtions and make him do 30 loops around the Milford charging station as his penance. Lol

 

[vfx]

Paul Graham Thinks The Tesla Model S Is 'Ugly,' Calls Elon Musk 'Jobs, Without Taste' - Business Insider

 

[NigelM]

Paul Graham Thinks The Tesla Model S Is 'Ugly,' Calls Elon Musk 'Jobs, Without Taste' - Business Insider

Personal viewpoint, that what Twitter''s all about. However.....I wonder how he'd feel if someone told him, "I think you have an amazing but ugly spouse."

 

[Tommy]

Is he trying to create an antagonym of the word "ulgy"; as in that car is one bad a** car which really means it's quite good.

 

[JRP3]

There are probably some people who think Victoria's Secret models are ugly too. No accounting for taste.

 

[Nin ja]

There are probably some people who think Victoria's Secret models are ugly too. No accounting for taste.

now now, the Model S is cute like a Jag, but it ain't no way comparable to Victory Secret models -- great car , great body, but it's mary ann and not ginger!

 

[JRP3]

I was actually more of a Mary Ann guy than Ginger :love:

 

[Norbert]

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:

We also discussed this in the anti-EV thread.

I suppose you are *not* saying that it actually takes 20,050 kWh, but that correcting *one factor* already reduces reduces the result of *that calculation* from 40,... to 20,... .

 

[JRP3]

Right, applying the calculations in that study and plugging in the 150Wh/kg density instead of their 75Wh/kg drops it down to 20,050.

 

[brianman]

There are probably some people who think Victoria's Secret models are ugly too. No accounting for taste.

We'll need some pictures to really settle this debate.

 

[NigelM]

We'll need some pictures to really settle this debate.

No. We don't.