Yea no worries, the stuff is called basic math pills. Got mine in primary school and lasted a lifetime
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
New AU FSD vrs USA FSD post June 21
- Thread starter Wesleyb
- Start date
with all die respect, your math pills expired...
in both scenarios Teslas already produced. So impact to the environment is the same in the beginning.
Next step is calculating impact per usage. And the less Tesla drives the less impact.
However if you're calculating total environment impact per km, you're right, Tesla powered by grid driving 100,000kms will have less impact to the environment PER KMS. Same as if I purchase EV to keep it in the garage - I'm not helping environment at all.
However, the final numbers are only matter. So the Tesla which drives more - does more harm.
in both scenarios Teslas already produced. So impact to the environment is the same in the beginning.
Next step is calculating impact per usage. And the less Tesla drives the less impact.
However if you're calculating total environment impact per km, you're right, Tesla powered by grid driving 100,000kms will have less impact to the environment PER KMS. Same as if I purchase EV to keep it in the garage - I'm not helping environment at all.
However, the final numbers are only matter. So the Tesla which drives more - does more harm.
Last edited:
Wol747
Active Member
>> A model S driven exclusively off solar energy but only driving 5,000 KMs per year is worse for the environment than a Model S driven exclusively off grid power and driving 100,000 KMs.<<
With respect to Dimitrii.Z, HIS argument is also a bit odd!
Look at the redacted quote again; it boils down to saying the same car driven 5k on solar is worse than being driven twenty times the distance on grid electricity!
I don’t know whether it’s a maths pill or a logic pill but I’d still like one!
With respect to Dimitrii.Z, HIS argument is also a bit odd!
Look at the redacted quote again; it boils down to saying the same car driven 5k on solar is worse than being driven twenty times the distance on grid electricity!
I don’t know whether it’s a maths pill or a logic pill but I’d still like one!
Last edited:
don't worry I take all my pills expired ... 
You are correct in that a car that drives less is naturally better for the environment than a car that drives more. Therefore we should all be trying to drive less in absolute numbers.
However that's only part of the story ...
2018 total KMs driven: 255,031 million
2020 total KMs driven: 238,499 million
2019 total transport emissions 25 Mt
Pandemic notwithstanding the total number of KMs driven is staying staying largely the same.
So for simplicity let's say 250 million KMs and 25 Mt of emissions which is: 25000000000 KG divided by 250000000000 KMs or 100grams per KM of all KMs travelled.
Our goal is to reduce the 25Mt number by whatever means possible. Our options are to reduce the total KMs traveled as we know each KM driven contributes 100grams of CO2 or; reduce the CO2 emission per KM. The question is, which option has highest impact? The answer of course is a bit of both-- however option 2 can have an outsized influence. That's because of EVs. An EV goes from 100g to 0 (+ grid emissions). We'll never get that kind of step change by trying to reduce the KMs driven. Even in a pandemic it will only drop a few %. So the one thing we can do in theory is make as many KMs of the total EV driven.
Imagine two scenarios:
Scenario 1:
EV KMs: 5,000
CO2 per km (solar): 0
(250000000000*0.1) - ((250000000000-5000)*0.1) = 500KG saved
Scenario 2:
EV KMs: 100,000
CO2 per km (grid): 8 g
((250000000000*0.1) - ((250000000000-100000)*0.1))-(100000*0.008) = 9200KG saved
The question is: how do you increase the KMs of your EV 20x without inventing net new 95,000 KMs over your natural 5,000 KMs?
This is where the robo taxi comes in as its able to utilize the vehicle for other people's transport needs rather than just your own. The demand for this is practically unlimited (if its solved at the right price point) so the potential for CO2 reduction is much, much higher than just selling a Model S to an individual. If Tesla can produce let's say 10 million robo taxi capable vehicles per year, each of them 25x more utilised, then this is the same as producing 250 million vehicles without robotaxi capability (in terms of CO2 reduction impact). Obviously scaling up to 250 million vehicles will not happen on our life times nor would there be a demand for personal ownership at this rate (considering it takes 10 years for a car to exit the global fleet). So the only way to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy is to have a robo taxi. Otherwise eventually Tesla's environmental impact will become linear as they hit a steady supply and demand balance.
Note I'm not calculating the cO2 of the production of the EV. This is an entirely different problem and would need to be amortised over its useful life expectancy (which is higher than a polluting vehicle).
You are correct in that a car that drives less is naturally better for the environment than a car that drives more. Therefore we should all be trying to drive less in absolute numbers.
However that's only part of the story ...
2018 total KMs driven: 255,031 million
2020 total KMs driven: 238,499 million
2019 total transport emissions 25 Mt
Pandemic notwithstanding the total number of KMs driven is staying staying largely the same.
So for simplicity let's say 250 million KMs and 25 Mt of emissions which is: 25000000000 KG divided by 250000000000 KMs or 100grams per KM of all KMs travelled.
Our goal is to reduce the 25Mt number by whatever means possible. Our options are to reduce the total KMs traveled as we know each KM driven contributes 100grams of CO2 or; reduce the CO2 emission per KM. The question is, which option has highest impact? The answer of course is a bit of both-- however option 2 can have an outsized influence. That's because of EVs. An EV goes from 100g to 0 (+ grid emissions). We'll never get that kind of step change by trying to reduce the KMs driven. Even in a pandemic it will only drop a few %. So the one thing we can do in theory is make as many KMs of the total EV driven.
Imagine two scenarios:
Scenario 1:
EV KMs: 5,000
CO2 per km (solar): 0
(250000000000*0.1) - ((250000000000-5000)*0.1) = 500KG saved
Scenario 2:
EV KMs: 100,000
CO2 per km (grid): 8 g
((250000000000*0.1) - ((250000000000-100000)*0.1))-(100000*0.008) = 9200KG saved
The question is: how do you increase the KMs of your EV 20x without inventing net new 95,000 KMs over your natural 5,000 KMs?
This is where the robo taxi comes in as its able to utilize the vehicle for other people's transport needs rather than just your own. The demand for this is practically unlimited (if its solved at the right price point) so the potential for CO2 reduction is much, much higher than just selling a Model S to an individual. If Tesla can produce let's say 10 million robo taxi capable vehicles per year, each of them 25x more utilised, then this is the same as producing 250 million vehicles without robotaxi capability (in terms of CO2 reduction impact). Obviously scaling up to 250 million vehicles will not happen on our life times nor would there be a demand for personal ownership at this rate (considering it takes 10 years for a car to exit the global fleet). So the only way to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy is to have a robo taxi. Otherwise eventually Tesla's environmental impact will become linear as they hit a steady supply and demand balance.
Note I'm not calculating the cO2 of the production of the EV. This is an entirely different problem and would need to be amortised over its useful life expectancy (which is higher than a polluting vehicle).
I think I might didn't get the logic but if it was 2 scenarios:
1. Model S powered by solar VS petrol car. Both driving the same 5000kms/year
2. Model S powered by grid VS petrol car. Both driving 100k kms/year
then,I think in total impact to environment (including manufacturing):
Scenario 1 - Petrol car less pollute overall
Scenario 2 - Tesla less pollute overall
Although, it'snot always and depend on the Vehicles as well... To exaggerate a bit: a crappy crap petrol car can poison the whole city driving 1000kms year... Moreover, if that Tesla is already made with recycled battery, the manufacture impact is by far less that a new car
1. Model S powered by solar VS petrol car. Both driving the same 5000kms/year
2. Model S powered by grid VS petrol car. Both driving 100k kms/year
then,I think in total impact to environment (including manufacturing):
Scenario 1 - Petrol car less pollute overall
Scenario 2 - Tesla less pollute overall
Although, it'snot always and depend on the Vehicles as well... To exaggerate a bit: a crappy crap petrol car can poison the whole city driving 1000kms year... Moreover, if that Tesla is already made with recycled battery, the manufacture impact is by far less that a new car
The arguement depends on a significant number of factors.
First up, an ev has no tailpipe emmisions but that does not mean it doesnt pollute or cause emmisions. That pollution depends entirely on how its power is sourced. Power from a solar array or a 100% renewable grid such as tasmania means you arent creating emmisions elsewhere, however if your grid has lots of nice dirty coal such as nsw, and depending on what else its mixed with, your coal sourced power can be worse than petrol. Even the time of day impacts that equation as the time and eather impact the mix of renewables to dilute the dirty coal, as does the quality of said coal and the type of petrol car you compare with. Different generation sources are a different outcome. Indeed many mount an arguement that cars in NSW, QLD, and VIC are driven solely off coal, as thats what is used to create more demand based power. Jury is out on that one, but if the fleet were to become 50% ev then the power has to come from somewhere.
You then have to look at use. Anyone with solar on their roof will tell you how difficult it is to get excess solar to charge your car this time of year, so for 3 months you might be lucky to get 100km of range from solar each week (I got none last week) and thats assuming you want to keep your house emmisions free. Even in summer, it can take at least a day and a half to add 400km to an ev using solar, once again without compromising your desire to not pull grid power for the house, and depending on your array size. Add two ev’s to your mix and the equation becomes even more difficult.
If you dedicate 100% of your rooftop solar to your car then you are just creating emmisions for your house instead, and once again it depends how that power is created, and when.
The answer is then impacted by each country as the energy sources are different. Some coal for example produces less energy than petrol for the same emmisions.
First up, an ev has no tailpipe emmisions but that does not mean it doesnt pollute or cause emmisions. That pollution depends entirely on how its power is sourced. Power from a solar array or a 100% renewable grid such as tasmania means you arent creating emmisions elsewhere, however if your grid has lots of nice dirty coal such as nsw, and depending on what else its mixed with, your coal sourced power can be worse than petrol. Even the time of day impacts that equation as the time and eather impact the mix of renewables to dilute the dirty coal, as does the quality of said coal and the type of petrol car you compare with. Different generation sources are a different outcome. Indeed many mount an arguement that cars in NSW, QLD, and VIC are driven solely off coal, as thats what is used to create more demand based power. Jury is out on that one, but if the fleet were to become 50% ev then the power has to come from somewhere.
You then have to look at use. Anyone with solar on their roof will tell you how difficult it is to get excess solar to charge your car this time of year, so for 3 months you might be lucky to get 100km of range from solar each week (I got none last week) and thats assuming you want to keep your house emmisions free. Even in summer, it can take at least a day and a half to add 400km to an ev using solar, once again without compromising your desire to not pull grid power for the house, and depending on your array size. Add two ev’s to your mix and the equation becomes even more difficult.
If you dedicate 100% of your rooftop solar to your car then you are just creating emmisions for your house instead, and once again it depends how that power is created, and when.
The answer is then impacted by each country as the energy sources are different. Some coal for example produces less energy than petrol for the same emmisions.
Let's not conflate the manufacturing CO2 impact as that is an entirely different calculation and its not related to the point I'm making. As you said earlier, in both scenarios the EV is produced so its cancels itself out. Obviously not making the car and driving an existing petrol car as little as possible is the best possible outcome but that wasn't my argument.
The best way you can reduce the total tailpipe production of CO2 is to reduce the total number of KMs travelled. As this won't happen, the next best alternative is to convert the highest possible percentage of those KMs to EV driven.
All of this is true but its accounted for. I added the emissions per kWh in my calculation to account for CO2 emissions in the grid.
Charging your EV on the absolute worst grid (in terms of emissions), it will always be better than the average polluting car available for sale in the same class.
Not only that but as time goes on, the polluting car continues to pollute at the same rate (if not worse) but the EV CO2 emissions go down as fast as we can transition the grid to 100% renewable. As we need to transition the electricity to production to 100% renewable anyway, upgrading to all EV gives us the transport transition for free so to speak. Elon has mentioned a few times to move 100% of transport electric would require roughy doubling the capacity of the grid.
Doubling the grid and transitioning to 100% to renewables is a large undertaking no doubt, but then again, so is autonomy but we have no choice. We have to do it to avoid a climate disaster.
What it boils down to is this:
assuming robotaxi is a real thing and you have a robotaxi sitting in your garage, if you have a choice:
1. optimise usage of the robotaxi to maximise the solar energy going into the battery
2. optimise usage of the robotaxi to maximise distance travelled with a paying rider.
In almost all cases, #2 is a net reduction in total CO2 emissions.
Wol747
Active Member
I'm not sure about the robotaxi thing (always assuming it ever comes about)
I wouldn't think the total miles travelled by the population would change that much. However, instead of a car being parked say at work a robotaxi would have to get from where it was to where the passenger wanted it, so overall the distance travelled would inevitably be higher.
If it meant fewer cars on the road then the manufacturing emissions would be less, but it would depend on whether people actually bought fewer cars.
Up, as they say, in the air.....
I wouldn't think the total miles travelled by the population would change that much. However, instead of a car being parked say at work a robotaxi would have to get from where it was to where the passenger wanted it, so overall the distance travelled would inevitably be higher.
If it meant fewer cars on the road then the manufacturing emissions would be less, but it would depend on whether people actually bought fewer cars.
Up, as they say, in the air.....
I‘d be surprised if ‘robotaxi’s’ do anything more than replace taxi’s and ubers. Ultimately people own a car because they dont like any of waiting, getting in a filthy car, or sitting in remnants of puke. Unfortunately changing the name of a service and removing the driver will cause occupant behaviour to deteriorate more.
but, as you say, its all up in the air and the downsides wont be known until and if it arrives. There is then the social fallout of the mass job losses in the industry.
I think you may be underestimating how little millennials want to own a car and overestimating how much of a problem operational things like vomit is in a robotaxi.
Things like paying insurance, finding parking, understanding rego, buying a car from a dealer, filling windscreen wiper fluid, servicing the vehicle etc are all unpaid labour that take far more time than waiting a few minutes for a ride. It’s chores like these that millennials typically hate and the ability to consume transportation as a service when it’s cheaper and more convenient than owning a car I think will be huge. It will be like the transition from Foxtel to Netflix in my opinion.
Things like paying insurance, finding parking, understanding rego, buying a car from a dealer, filling windscreen wiper fluid, servicing the vehicle etc are all unpaid labour that take far more time than waiting a few minutes for a ride. It’s chores like these that millennials typically hate and the ability to consume transportation as a service when it’s cheaper and more convenient than owning a car I think will be huge. It will be like the transition from Foxtel to Netflix in my opinion.
This oft-repeated narrative is not well founded, seemingly having arisen anecdotally or from earlier studies that failed to fully account for temporal confounding factors like the Great Recession. In more recent studies of both revealed and stated preferences, Millennial car ownership and/or aspirations appear largely consistent with earlier generations.
Perhaps you meant to say Gen Z, but again even there the early evidence does not support this view.
That said, I wholly agree with your core point over how culturally transformative an actual, realized robo-taxi service would prove to be... although I happen to think this would cut across all generations.
Where are you getting your data from?
ABS shows a decline in vehicle ownership 20-30 age bracket over the past 5 yrs when looking at metro areas.
as public transport hasn’t materially improved, the only change is ride sharing.
ride sharing in Australia is a far bigger market than taxis ever were and autonomous ride hailing will be bigger than ride sharing yet again.
Wol747
Active Member
>>ride sharing in Australia is a far bigger market than taxis ever were and autonomous ride hailing will be bigger than ride sharing yet again.<<
There are an awful lot of "will be"s in the whole FSD debate. The beta that's shown on YouTube demonstrates lots of interventions and throw-outs even as we are told it's nearly perfect - and having a driver ready to intervene is a different ball game to having a couple of teenagers in the back seat and no manual controls.
There are an awful lot of "will be"s in the whole FSD debate. The beta that's shown on YouTube demonstrates lots of interventions and throw-outs even as we are told it's nearly perfect - and having a driver ready to intervene is a different ball game to having a couple of teenagers in the back seat and no manual controls.
Similar threads
