JRP3
Hyperactive Member
There is another, safer way to do nuclear. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/4167-Liquid-Fluoride-Thorium-Reactors
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Using your above answer in this thread to delve a little deeper -
1. although in Alaska all charge for the Model S will come from excess production from our PV panels, in Arizona, it gets charged from the APS grid. Have you a source for how APS maintains its marginal ss/dd? The lion's share of their production is out of the Palo Verde nuclear plant but, as you wrote, that rarely would be ramped. And, per APS's residential rate structure, the Tesla is charged almost exclusively between the hours of 11pm and 5am.
2. in Alaska, there is no interconnected grid. What we call "Intertie" up there refers effectively only to the connection between the Anchorage-centered production sites and the Fairbanks-centered one. (I'm way, way, way off those or any other grids, so none of it effects me). But in the lower-48, although there ARE "regions" in the same way that there are PADD regions (different topic), effectively ALL the USA (together with Canada) is interconnected. So how much of the state-by-state discussion of "where my electricity comes from" is factual and how much is it more a convenience of speech?
3. At the end of your entry #50 in this thread, after discussing the efficacy of a carbon tax and its concomitant political impossibility, you wrote "....anything this Congress does could be undone by a future Congress". That brought to my mind Thucydides's discussion of how in the Peloponnesian Wars, Athens voted not only to sequester a mass of its Treasury safe from the war budget, but to forbid on pain of death or exile any vote to un-sequester it. I wonder if there exists any method by which a US Congress could likewise create such a mortmain. (I also wonder if I'm misremembering the History..., and if I only thought that that second clause would have been a way for the Athenians to avoid their self-destruction).
Sure, Tesla alone won't save the planet, not for a long shot. It's meant to force other car makers to build real electric cars, instead of compliance cars designed to maximize return on hybrid and zero emission vehicle credits. Plus we need to get off coal as much as we need to get off oil.
If the rest of the market don't move (so far it really hasn't), by 2020 Tesla will be building either the full capacity of the Fremont factory worth of Model S + Model X (300k cars/year) or 500k-600k cars/year (including the model E). I'm contemplating the possibility that Model S demand is way higher than Tesla anticipated, and given the Model S much higher profitability (and the model X similar profitability and potential sales) that Tesla won't be in such a hurry to do the model E, if they can continue to satisfy the insatiable demand the Model S has been having so far. There's even speculation about resuming production of an updated Roadster (I would assume with supercharging, and a supercharging retrofit for existing Roadsters too).
At that volume Tesla will still be small potatoes compared to Toyota's 10 million cars/year, but Tesla will have at least US$ 20 billion / year revenues and at least US$ 5 billion in yearly cash flow to invest, which would enable continued growth until Tesla is so big they can't be a lean, mean machine they are today. They would literally have the cash to build either a brand new facility like the Fremont loaded for full capacity production every year, or one giga li-ion factory every year, without taking a single dime in loans.
It will be interesting to see if Tesla will eat sales from BWM, Mercedes, Audi, ... and how much will be people that otherwise wouldn't buy a high end car that decide the Model S is a better value proposition (both in Luxury and fuel/maintenance cost advantages).
And there's the trickle down effect of used but still in great shape Teslas. The biggest problem with used cars is engine wear and tear and rust, which probably won't apply to a mostly aluminium/electric car.
If the rest of the market don't move (so far it really hasn't), by 2020 Tesla will be building either the full capacity of the Fremont factory worth of Model S + Model X (300k cars/year) or 500k-600k cars/year (including the model E). I'm contemplating the possibility that Model S demand is way higher than Tesla anticipated, and given the Model S much higher profitability (and the model X similar profitability and potential sales) that Tesla won't be in such a hurry to do the model E, if they can continue to satisfy the insatiable demand the Model S has been having so far. There's even speculation about resuming production of an updated Roadster (I would assume with supercharging, and a supercharging retrofit for existing Roadsters too).
At that volume Tesla will still be small potatoes compared to Toyota's 10 million cars/year, but Tesla will have at least US$ 20 billion / year revenues and at least US$ 5 billion in yearly cash flow to invest, which would enable continued growth until Tesla is so big they can't be a lean, mean machine they are today. They would literally have the cash to build either a brand new facility like the Fremont loaded for full capacity production every year, or one giga li-ion factory every year, without taking a single dime in loans.
It will be interesting to see if Tesla will eat sales from BWM, Mercedes, Audi, ... and how much will be people that otherwise wouldn't buy a high end car that decide the Model S is a better value proposition (both in Luxury and fuel/maintenance cost advantages).
And there's the trickle down effect of used but still in great shape Teslas. The biggest problem with used cars is engine wear and tear and rust, which probably won't apply to a mostly aluminium/electric car.
Last edited:
Hi to all. You have to consider that the Tesla vehicles are in reality not a zero-emission vehicle. As for all modes of transportation (without extending to all products) there is a thermodynamic envelope that "surrounds" the vehicle- it costs energy to make the materials, it costs energy to put them together, to transport, fuel- which for us is the energy created at the power plant, etc etc. So, no it will not save the planet- it merely shifts the energy load, but a really nice way to get to church (or wherever).
What we have is a beautiful looking new concept for transport with ICE range, near-super car performance, and for now, a certain amount of exclusivity. Consider all the advertising that BMW is now doing.... for a much more constrained car- Tesla does not need to advertise. There is probably another object lesson there, too.
What we have is a beautiful looking new concept for transport with ICE range, near-super car performance, and for now, a certain amount of exclusivity. Consider all the advertising that BMW is now doing.... for a much more constrained car- Tesla does not need to advertise. There is probably another object lesson there, too.
It's funny how everybody knows what the energy lifecicle is on every part of a car as soon as it's electric, but nobody ever questions where gasoline comes from... And how much electricity is used while refining Gasoline:
How much electricity is used refine a gallon of Gasoline?
So actually everyone is driving half electric already
But of corse you're right, even if we use a bit less energy to get form A to B, we are just shifting the energy production. But I think in an important way. The electric grid has the potential of becomming clean and sustainable. It's a very far way to go, so it's good that the money and the smart heads start to go in that direction.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
From your link:
The often quoted 6-7kWh of electricity per gallon figure is wrong, it's total energy, only a small portion of which is electricity.
The often quoted 6-7kWh of electricity per gallon figure is wrong, it's total energy, only a small portion of which is electricity.
Smart money is on electric. All of our homes have pipes that deliver necessities - data pipes (cable, DSL), water pipes, and electrical pipes (wiring). The smart money has figured out how to pipe things to us that no longer require us to leave our homes. Now we can stream our videos and music - no need to drive to your local video rental or music store. Water pipes brought us water when we previously went to the well with a bucket. Now, with EVs, fuel is delivered right to our homes. It seems to be the natural progression of things, which is why Toyota's hydrogen fuel cell is such a joke. That's a step sideways, not forward.
It it was specifically CA heavy crude. Different places or different crude, different inputs.
Oh, and to add
- Typical output product is actually 45.5 gal/bbl
- Gasoline is actually a high-energy fraction, so the amount of energy used to refine gasoline is higher than the average per barrel.
- - - Updated - - -
Or even ...
How to get me to watch a movie - The Oatmeal
Electrification works in part because of the synergy with the grid. Utilities have been trying to get people to load-shift and here's a technology that creates rolling computerized boxes that can store close to or more than current normal domestic demand and draw most electricity off-peak. The utilities' only problem is that it also prompts people to evaluate their overall use and install solar PV.
Pollution.
Noise.
Diversification.
Domestication.
Sustainability.
Synergy.
It can't save the planet, but Tesla's focus on making it work isn't hurting.
Last edited:
That energy / resources is on the cost of the vehicle.
If a Tesla Model S costs as much as a similar BMW, then why it's a bigger resource waster ????
Obviously someone that is truly environmentally conscious would keep their Tesla for at least until the battery is seriously degraded. And that's another pro Tesla consideration. The car's mostly aluminum and electrical drive train simplicity promises that a Tesla could be used for 15 years (with one battery pack change midway), and even after 15 years, replace the motor and a few more components and keep going. After 15 years, just gasoline and lubricant savings alone will have fully paid for the original environmental cost to make the car in first place.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Sure, but the main input is heat, so electricity use per gallon will still be small.
The planet doesn't exactly need to be "saved", anyway. The earth would carry on just fine without us, until it is scorched by the the aging Sun as its luminosity gradually increases, then eventually engulfed when the Sun turns into a Red Giant.
The goal here is to support 7+ billion people and continue to improve everyone's quality of life. Fossil fuels have enabled tremendous progress. But it is high time to transition to renewables (and safer nuclear like LFTR) if we want progress to continue without the nastiest "side effects" of fossil fuels. Electrification of transportation is a key part of that.
The goal here is to support 7+ billion people and continue to improve everyone's quality of life. Fossil fuels have enabled tremendous progress. But it is high time to transition to renewables (and safer nuclear like LFTR) if we want progress to continue without the nastiest "side effects" of fossil fuels. Electrification of transportation is a key part of that.
ChadS
Last tank of gas: March 2009
"X will not save the planet" is true for all X. So while true, it's not a very useful statement.
What we're really looking for is a bunch of things that will help "save the planet" (though as noted, "saving the planet" is ill-defined). The Model is certainly an excellent tool to have in the box. It's a LOT cleaner than a comparable ICE now, and has room to be even better as the grid cleans up and people generate their own renewable electricity.
What we're really looking for is a bunch of things that will help "save the planet" (though as noted, "saving the planet" is ill-defined). The Model is certainly an excellent tool to have in the box. It's a LOT cleaner than a comparable ICE now, and has room to be even better as the grid cleans up and people generate their own renewable electricity.
Elon is working on saving a small sample of humans. If we have to leave earth in the next 100 years, if we're lucky 1% of us will manage to go. Might be less than 0,1%.
Even if we could move to Mars at half a million dollars cost for a few million people, that doesn't mean it's doable for hundreds of millions of people. Too many resource scarcities would prevent doing this on a huge scale, at least until the Mars colony can mine and manufacture its own resources.
Don't fool yourself. We must keep the earth livable for humans.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
That's what solar sails are for, at least conceptually. Welcome to 2014.
World's largest solar sail to launch in 2014 - Technology & science - Space - Space.com | NBC News
Speak for yourself. Nothing you said above applies to me or anyone that I know. Pfft!
Similar threads
