"Even if you buy no options at all, this will still be an amazing car!"

[Topher]

The petrol consumption carbon can be offset with about 1.5 kW of PV

No. It can't. That is just a total fantasy invented to make people feel better. Once that CO2 is in the atmosphere you need to actually remove it, to 'offset' it. There isn't some magical amount of CO2 we are allowed to release, and so we get to use debit accounting to stay under that amount. The planet doesn't care how much you didn't release, only what you do release.

Thank you kindly.

 

[SageBrush]

No. It can't. That is just a total fantasy invented to make people feel better. Once that CO2 is in the atmosphere you need to actually remove it, to 'offset' it. There isn't some magical amount of CO2 we are allowed to release, and so we get to use debit accounting to stay under that amount. The planet doesn't care how much you didn't release, only what you do release.

How about what the power plant did not burn in order to supply my neighbor, since he can use my extra production ?

 

[Topher]

I'm a great believer in PV, but it certainly isn't practical everywhere.

There are solar PV panels at the South Pole.

if you live somewhere where 95% of the grid is renewables and it's *very* cloudy 300+ days a year.

You mentioned the key to that in that very quote. 'Grid'. Put the panels where it is sunny. Send the power over the grid. Or buy solar panels for your friends that live somewhere sunny, and they can buy the power from you via a PPA. Or...

Quite frankly, I am getting sick of hearing the excuses. Do something. This is the only planet we have.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Stolz25]

That thank you kindly signature just makes me want to go burn down some trees.

 

[Topher]

How about what the power plant did not burn in order to supply my neighbor, since he can use my extra production ?

You are starting with the assumption that the power plant has already burnt that fuel. Start from a plan of putting NO CO2 in the air today. Now try to justify your releases. Every fuel burned increases the CO2 in the atmosphere. Every use of electricity is assessed at AVERAGE CO2 production of the entire grid. This is how the planet calculates it, so this is how we have to calculate it.

Thank you kindly.

 

[Topher]

That thank you kindly signature just makes me want to go burn down some trees.

You might want to seek professional help.

 

[Red Sage]

I understand your point, but the PHEV has the redeeming features of convenience, versatility, and cost. I find the first two benefits to be minor compared to a Tesla although I accept that it may vary. The cost difference is more obvious and the difference can pay for a home PV setup.

If we ask what is better for the community/country/earth for the next 10-20 years

PHEV+PV, or
EV+grid

is the answer really so obviously in favor of EV ?

Yes. PHEV is absolutely NOT the answer -- unless you can figure out how to combine it with a Mr. Fusion.

What 'cost difference' are you speaking of, anyway? The difference between a Ford Fusion Energi or Chevrolet VOLT and a Tesla Model S 75? C'mon, MAN!

The Tesla Model ☰ arrives -- TOMORROW. Not 'some day', not 'eventually', not 'SOON', and not 'after a while'. T-O-M-O-R-R-O-W! That is, the day that follows... TODAY. The Ford starts at $33,120 -- you won't be able to supplement that with much of a solar panel array for the $1,880 difference in price for the Tesla. The Chevrolet starts at a whole $100 more, leaving you only $1,780 for solar panels. Rots-o-ruck with that one, Raggy. I think I'd rather get a lot more fully electric range to go along with my solar panels, if you don't mind, and get the Model ☰ instead.

 

[SageBrush]

You are starting with the assumption that the power plant has already burnt that fuel.

I am starting from the assumption that my extra PV generation is conserving fossil fuel that would otherwise be consumed.

 

[SageBrush]

The Ford starts at $33,120 -- you won't be able to supplement that with much of a solar panel array for the $1,880 difference in price for the Tesla. The Chevrolet starts at a whole $100 more, leaving you only $1,780 for solar panels.

Be fair, and use street prices. I paid $25.5k for my Prius Prime OTD (not including TTL)
It was the base version, so I compare to the $35k Model 3 -- though I suspect with some favoring of the Model 3 since I expect to pay extra for dynamic CC.

 

[Topher]

I am starting from the assumption that my extra PV generation is conserving fossil fuel that would otherwise be consumed.

Which might even be true. But why do you think that makes it ok for you to burn MORE in your car?

Thank you kindly.

 

[Red Sage]

I'm with zenmaster on this. There are many hyperbolic quotes here. How many laps did the Nio do before it had to charge for a few hours? A supercar will win the race every time until charging is better as well. You can design and build a great electric supercar that will out accelerate and set a single lap record, but it can't win a race when it has to charge for an hour.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is awesome to watch the drag race videos, in fact I was showing them to my father last weekend. Even those, you see the ICE catching up and passing when the race goes beyond 1/8 mile. But when it comes down to it, unless the race is a single lap, don't count on a battery powered vehicle winning against a supercar.

On the topic, I can't wait to hear more details about the driving experience of the 3. If it is in the BMW 3-series (and similar cars) ballpark, I'm sold. I'm sold anyway, but that makes it even more enticing.

Yeah, well this is precisely what I was speaking of in another reply above. The constant need to move the goalposts in order to protect territory once owned by ICE. No one else in the Top 100 at Nürburgring had to 'prove themselves' by running multiple laps. The benchmark has always been a single flying lap. For like, EVER, and stuff. But now an electric car must 'prove' it can beat everyone more than once, before their claim to the throne can be claimed? Really? C'mon, MAN! That's not even remotely fair.

But, since you insist... How many laps would it take to convince you? Can the electric car make pit stops, for suspension adjustments, to refuel, to get new tires and stuff -- like ICE vehicles do -- is that much allowed? What about when the top ten spots are all filled by different electric vehicles from a variety of manufacturers? Does the car have to be available for public purchase, or can it be a prototype? Is there a limit to how much downforce, or a maximum/minimum number of passengers? Do you want to handicap the electric car so that it has less than the energy equivalent of three gallons of gasoline on board at all times? Will electric cars have to run the track in both directions in order to validate the results and get an acceptable average for comparison? The track is roughly 14 miles long. So, 36 laps would be enough to manage 500+ miles. If the car can complete 36 laps within 12 hours, would that suffice? Or would you simply move the goalposts again? And, as a bonus, if it were able to complete the 36 laps in less than 4 hours 24 minutes, you would never, ever, ever be able to defend ICE in any manner whatsoever for the duration, OK?

Geez.

 

[SageBrush]

Which might even be true. But why do you think that makes it ok for you to burn MORE in your car?

Because the burning in my car saves enough money that when applied elsewhere leads to conservation of much more burning elsewhere.

This is just an opportunity cost argument in terms of carbon emissions. It does not apply once the the grid is clean, but that is past the lifetime of a car bought today.

 

[Red Sage]

He says, while linking to a story about VW building 150+kW chargers.

If that was what the story was about, Volkswagen paying penance by building multiple stations of multiple charging points capable of 150 kW fast DC charging...? I would be celebrating it as a marvelous move toward an EV filled commitment for their product line and those from other automobile manufacturers. And if it was about Volkswagen actually rolling out the 800V charging they spoke of for the Mission E that would allow 80% charges in five to fifteen minutes or whatever, I would be positively ecstatic. But neither of those is what the article is about, so I ridicule them instead for NOT BUILDING SUPERCHARGERS in an effective manner at all.

 

[bnsn]

Yeah, well this is precisely what I was speaking of in another reply above. The constant need to move the goalposts in order to protect territory once owned by ICE. No one else in the top 100 at Nürburgring had to 'prove themselves' by running multiple laps. The benchmark has always been a single flying lap. For like, EVER, and stuff. But now an electric car must 'prove' it can beat everyone more than once, before their claim to the throne can be claimed? Really? C'mon, MAN! That's not even remotely fair.

But, since you insist... How many laps would it take to convince you? Can the electric car make pit stops, for suspension adjustments, to refuel, to get new tires and stuff -- like ICE vehicles do -- is that much allowed? What about when the top ten spots are all filled by different electric vehicles from a variety of manufacturers? Does the car have to be available for public purchase, or can it be a prototype? Is there a limit to how much downforce, or a maximum/minimum number of passengers? Do you want to handicap the electric car so that it has less than the energy equivalent of three gallons of gasoline on board at all times? The track is roughly 14 miles long. So, 36 laps would be enough to manage 500 miles. If the car can complete 36 laps within 12 hours, would that suffice? Or would you simply move the goalposts again?

Geez.

I get what you are saying, I was talking about a race, not a track record. I guess you could race a single lap, sure. Have fun with that. I am admittedly not a huge auto racing fan (MotoGP is interesting though), but I can't think of a race that is only a single lap or otherwise short distance aside from drag racing.

To answer your questions, no handicap, just a heads-up race, sure, 36 laps. First to finish wins. That's how races work, right? Who is moving the goalposts? You put a few words in my mouth there (which you seem to like to do). 12 hours is not going to win against much. I'd bet a school bus can go 500 miles in less time.

 

[bnsn]

I'd like to add that I am all aboard the EV bandwagon, I just think it'll take time for EV to catch up in some areas. Charging takes longer than refueling an ICE, that is a fact.

It is taking me a while to convince my father that EV like Tesla are a great option. When I finally get my Model S CPO (hopefully within a month or so), and Model 3 next year, he will get to see them firsthand and maybe that will convince him. He is concerned with the charging aspect taking a long time. I say, what's a half hour or so every 2-3 hours anyway? It's a nice break, get up, go to the bathroom, get a beverage, relax. And that's just on road trips. Normal driving won't matter, charge at night and you are ready to go the next day.

 

[SageBrush]

I'd like to add that I am all aboard the EV bandwagon, I just think it'll take time for EV to catch up in some areas. Charging takes longer than refueling an ICE, that is a fact.

It is taking me a while to convince my father that EV like Tesla are a great option. When I finally get my Model S CPO (hopefully within a month or so), and Model 3 next year, he will get to see them firsthand and maybe that will convince him. He is concerned with the charging aspect taking a long time. I say, what's a half hour or so every 2-3 hours anyway? It's a nice break, get up, go to the bathroom, get a beverage, relax. And that's just on road trips. Normal driving won't matter, charge at night and you are ready to go the next day.

Exactly ... and that is for LONG road trips -- the sort I would fly.

My semi-routine long drives are 250 miles each way, so I figure one, 15 minute break that would usually only be ~ 10 minutes if I am in a hurry.

 

[R.S]

If that was what the story was about, Volkswagen paying penance by building multiple stations of multiple charging points capable of 150 kW fast DC charging...? I would be celebrating it as a marvelous move toward an EV filled commitment for their product line and those from other automobile manufacturers. And if it was about Volkswagen actually rolling out the 800V charging they spoke of for the Mission E that would allow 80% charges in five to fifteen minutes or whatever, I would be positively ecstatic. But neither of those is what the article is about, so I ridicule them instead for NOT BUILDING SUPERCHARGERS in an effective manner at all.

Maybe you should reread that article then... because it is exactly about that. I can give you another, more recent, article if you like:
VW to build a ‘nationwide 150 kW+ fast charging network’ for electric vehicles as part of Dieselgate settlement

And you might not have read my other comments, so I'll say it again:

From Electrify America's national ZEV investment plan:

Industry input received during the Outreach Plan provides Electrify America with confidence that one or more vehicle manufacturers plan to sell 320 kW capable ZEVs by 2020. Electrify America will carefully evaluate the ratio of 150/320 kW chargers at these sites for maximum customer convenience and optimal budgeting, but it plans to “future proof” these investments by designing most stations to be cost-effectively converted from 150 kW to 320 kW charging by the end of the 4th cycle (e.g., by installing appropriately-powered utility connections capable of handling 320 kW chargers), as recommended by Idaho National Lab.

You can read into that all you want and it isn't even like I care. I live in Germany and drive a Tesla, so I am not really affected by that. But quoting an article that says VW will build over 150 kW chargers, to prove VW won't build chargers comparable to superchargers is just wrong.

That ZEV investment plan is attached to the electrek article, might be more interesting for you, since you live in LA. Also good news for us Tesla owners, Porsche says that Teslas will be able to charge on their chargers, with an adapter, US and Europe. The have also apparently built two of their 800V chargers, or at least two stations, probably for testing purposes. But two stations are hardly a network.

 

[lupend88]

That thank you kindly signature just makes me want to go burn down some trees.

Hardest I have ever laughed on this thread hahaha

 

[Red Sage]

Because the burning in my car saves enough money that when applied elsewhere leads to conservation of much more burning elsewhere.

This is just an opportunity cost argument in terms of carbon emissions. It does not apply once the the grid is clean, but that is past the lifetime of a car bought today.

I've told my Mom, my Aunts, my Cousins, and my Girlfriends the same thing: There is no difference between something being 'ON sale' and 'FOR sale'. The only way to 'save money' is to not spend it.

The same philosophy applies to using 'less gas' for the sake of conservation. The only way to 'save gas' is to stop burning it. For good.

The notion of 'conservation' being for the sake of using the same resources later misses the point entirely. Jay Leno has said something similar before... The idea is that people would use electric cars during the week, so that there was 'more gas' for guys like him to burn through on the weekends when playing with their toys. No. It doesn't work that way. Because once you burn the gasoline, it is gone. For good. And the shelf life for gasoline is much shorter than that for Lithium-ion batteries, which can be fully recycled to be used again. What is gasoline good for once it 'goes bad'...? There is no 'Reduce, Reuse, Recycle' for petroleum fuels. Once it is gone, it is done, and won't come back. Ever.

 

[SageBrush]

I've told my Mom, my Aunts, my Cousins, and my Girlfriends the same thing: There is no difference between something being 'ON sale' and 'FOR sale'. The only way to 'save money' is to not spend it.

The same philosophy applies to using 'less gas' for the sake of conservation. The only way to 'save gas' is to stop burning it. For good.

The notion of 'conservation' being for the sake of using the same resources later misses the point entirely. Jay Leno has said something similar before... The idea is that people would use electric cars during the week, so that there was 'more gas' for guys like him to burn through on the weekends when playing with their toys. No. It doesn't work that way. Because once you burn the gasoline, it is gone. For good. And the shelf life for gasoline is much shorter than that for Lithium-ion batteries, which can be fully recycled to be used again. What is gasoline good for once it 'goes bad'...? There is no 'Reduce, Reuse, Recycle' for petroleum fuels. Once it is gone, it is done, and won't come back. Ever.

You don't like the word conservation. OK

My excess generation of PV results in less fossil fuel use at the power plant. Are we good ?