Porsche to build charging network, Tesla compatible

[ecarfan]

The other question I have is what the numbers are to more decimals. I can make it look huge by saying that 0.035% rounded is 0.04%, even though it only increased from 0.034% which was rounded down to 0.03%. This is only a 3% change rather than the 33% you are pointing out. I believe that some of these studies are presented in this way to help many of the people that are trying to line their pockets like Al Gore. If he wasn't flying in a private jet, I may have had some more belief in what he says.

Your position is unsupportable. It's not just Al Gore that is saying rising CO2 levels threaten the future of humanity, it is 99% of all actual climate scientists! And they don't get rich doing it. They are simply scientists reporting real data. (Note: on TMC I have been labeled as a "zealot" for saying that. My response is "refute the data, don't label me and walk away.)

The graph that @3Victoria linked to makes it crystal clear: for hundreds of thousands of years atmospheric CO2 has been stable at between 170 and 300ppm. But in the last 66 years it has increased from 300 to 400ppm. No one has identified and measured any non-human process that is occurring right now that can explain anywhere near that great an increase. Look at the trend line: rapid continuing growth. Now look at all the ways that human activity puts CO2 into the atmosphere right now: they continue to occur with literally no end in sight. Tiny amounts of EVs on the road and small percentages of power (out of the total amount produced) generated sustainably do not effect that trend line. In this century we need to move a huge percentage of power generation to sustainable sources of energy. And that is exactly what Tesla is trying to make happen. The technology exists; we just have to decide to use it. There is a solution.

 

[Topher]

A simpler answer can be found if you just ask how much CO2 have we have produced by burning fossil fuels, how does that compare with the increase in the atmosphere (and oceans). They are of the same magnitude. Do the math yourself, prove me wrong.

Thank you kindly.

p.s. Humans have measurably changed the rotation rate of the Earth. Climate is well within our capabilities.

 

[ggr]

Thank you all for refuting @jspayneii's figures, and implicitly supporting mine. The question to him/her remains, where did this CO2 come from, if not us burning millions of years worth of accreted fossil fuel in 50 years?

 

[thegruf]

I read the "Tesla capable" part as nothing more than marketing BS with Porsche trying to associate themselves with Tesla's success.

imo Porsche have no intention of teaming/offering compatibility with Tesla in any way whatsoever, they are way too proud (some might say arrogant) for that.

For the Germans Tesla is a huge market disruptor that they simply havent figured how to deal with yet.

Not only that but talk of 800V will bring its own engineering challenges.
I think it is fair to say that Tesla would have opted for a higher voltage if it was easy to do, clearly halving cable sizes is a quick cost and weight saving win, but higher voltages bring insulation and greater safety issues.

 

[RogerHScott]

Re 800v, this is pure speculation (hut, hey, what's TMC for, anyway? ), but I wouldn't be surprised if there are rapidly increasingly
restrictive regulations about proximity of high voltages to consumers. It may be substantially harder to implement a legal way to deliver 800v to someone's car than 400v. If they could pipe 14kv straight into your car think of what they could save on step-down transformers!
Sure, you'd have to worry about headlines such as "Tesla confirms that carbon pile next to P100D found abandoned at Supercharger used to be the car's owner".

 

[glhs272]

imo Porsche have no intention of teaming/offering compatibility with Tesla in any way whatsoever, they are way too proud (some might say arrogant) for that.

I think your skepticism is warranted. However, I believe Tesla is now part of the CCS standards group (I forget what they call themselves) along with VW. I am hopeful that this is the cooperation VW/Porsche is talking about. The last thing we need is an entirely new and unique to one brand charging standard. I would hope that VW/Porsche et al understand that it is in their interest to have a widely usable charging network. Better to have a broad base of customers/users. It gets much harder to maintain a large charging network if only a handful of Mission E Porsches can use them.

 

[bxr140]

How does moving from directly fossil-fuel burning cars to indirectly fossil-fuel burning EVs
powered by directly fossil-fuel burning power plants meaningfully move that particular needle? The net increase in ounces-of-oil-
per-mile efficiency, while non-zero, doesn't seem large enough to affect geo-politics.

Sure it does. For the US, you would shift automobile propulsion from a mostly North American source (petroleum) to an almost completely North American source (coal and natural gas), and the numbers are big enough that it's not just semantics.

That's more dollars in my countrymen's pockets and less in geopolitically unstable regions like the Middle East and Africa. Win win. The net positive GHG is icing on the cake.

It also shifts those global dollars spent from a fairly monopolized industry who's power has a major impact on geopolitics (oil) to a more distributed and local one (electrical generation).

To varying degrees every country will see the same kinds of benefits, increasingly so as more local renewables are implemented. Energy independence is a real thing.

 

[RogerHScott]

shift automobile propulsion ... to ... (coal and ...)
...
The net positive GHG is icing on the cake. [emphasis added]

Come again?

 

[jspayneii]

Your position is unsupportable. It's not just Al Gore that is saying rising CO2 levels threaten the future of humanity, it is 99% of all actual climate scientists! And they don't get rich doing it. They are simply scientists reporting real data. (Note: on TMC I have been labeled as a "zealot" for saying that. My response is "refute the data, don't label me and walk away.)

First off, my point was that Al Gore says it is rising, and doesn't act like it. Your spokesperson is a hippocrite. Your position is also unsupportable. The 99% is a bunch of bull. When have 99% of people agreed on anything?

The “97 percent” statistic first appeared prominently in a 2009 study by University of Illinois master’s student Kendall Zimmerman and her adviser, Peter Doran. Based on a two-question online survey, Zimmerman and Doran concluded that “the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific bases of long-term climate processes” — even though only 5 percent of respondents, or about 160 scientists, were climate scientists. In fact, the “97 percent” statistic was drawn from an even smaller subset: the 79 respondents who were both self-reported climate scientists and had “published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change.” These 77 scientists agreed that global temperatures had generally risen since 1800, and that human activity is a “significant contributing factor.”

Read more at: The 97 Percent Solution

It is all about the understanding of where the numbers came from. As you can see, there is all ready an article discussing how the 97% number is false. If 97% is false, 99% has to also be false. The data that we do have comes from different measurement mechanisms. We couldn't have "measured" the CO2 levels hundreds of thousands of years ago, unless we have invented a time machine that I am unaware of.

According to the following chart, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature. And this is recent data using the same sample source.

Hopefully, you can see why I am skeptical. There have been too many "stretches of truth" regarding this issue. We can bend the numbers to suit our own personal agenda. Do I think that driving an EV is better than a gasoline vehicle, DEFINITELY. For air quality, and performance reasons.

 

[RogerHScott]

We couldn't have "measured" the CO2 levels hundreds of thousands of years ago

Right up until here you were clinging to a shred of credibility, which you just tossed to the wind. Why don't you just say "I don't believe
in science" and be done with it?

 

[jspayneii]

Right up until here you were clinging to a shred of credibility, which you just tossed to the wind. Why don't you just say "I don't believe
in science" and be done with it?

I believe you are the one that believes in unproven data. The measurement techniques are different. Therefore, the data is inconsistent at best, and not comparable to the measurements we take today.

It sounds like you don't want to listen to an opposing view and just dismiss it as ecarfan said to me "My response is "refute the data, don't label me and walk away."

 

[glhs272]

I think there is a better thread for the global warming discussion than this Porsche charging thread, but I will take the blame for bringing it up. At least were not talking about the election!

 

[ggr]

I believe you are the one that believes in unproven data. The measurement techniques are different. Therefore, the data is inconsistent at best, and not comparable to the measurements we take today.

It sounds like you don't want to listen to an opposing view and just dismiss it as ecarfan said to me "My response is "refute the data, don't label me and walk away."

This started because I asked a simple question about the change in measured CO2 levels in my lifetime. It's a question you keep avoiding answering. So far you have assumed (without any justification) that it was rounding error. You have also implied that not even 97% of scientists agree with the measurement, which is plainly false; even climate change deniers don't deny that CO2 levels have risen in the last 50 years, and I can't find a single scientist who denies that simple fact.

 

[bxr140]

Come again?

Cat got your tongue?

There's no question that every oil dollar we move from unstable geopolitical regions (Middle East, Africa) to onshore sources of electricity is a net positive on the geopolitical scale. There's no question that every automobile mile that's electric powered--even if its coal electric--is net positive GHG over gasoline.

The magnitude of those net positives is pretty irrelevant, as both are constantly rising with the growth of renewables.

 

[RogerHScott]

There's no question that every automobile mile that's electric powered--even if its coal electric--is net positive GHG over gasoline.

Well, there's at least one question -- I question that. It is contrary to the information available to me. If you can cite a source I'd
be delighted to learn otherwise.
Electric Cars Are Not Necessarily Clean

Even this: The ‘electric cars aren’t green’ myth debunked says:
"Using coal powered electricity electric cars do nothing to cut emissions..."

 

[jspayneii]

I think there is a better thread for the global warming discussion than this Porsche charging thread, but I will take the blame for bringing it up.

Very true. This will be my last post on this thread regarding this topic.

This started because I asked a simple question about the change in measured CO2 levels in my lifetime. It's a question you keep avoiding answering. So far you have assumed (without any justification) that it was rounding error.

If we focus on your lifetime, I will concede the fact that CO2 levels have risen. We know this because we started recording CO2 data in 1957, and continue to measure that in the same way. I will agree that burning fossil fuels creates CO2. I would question that perhaps we have cut down too many trees and plants that would convert CO2 to Oxygen.

You have also implied that not even 97% of scientists agree with the measurement, which is plainly false; even climate change deniers don't deny that CO2 levels have risen in the last 50 years, and I can't find a single scientist who denies that simple fact.

I am not arguing or implying that 97% of scientists don't agree with the measurements during your lifetime. My point is simply that 99% of scientists don't all believe in man made climate change due to green house gases including CO2, as stated in the following quote.

It's not just Al Gore that is saying rising CO2 levels threaten the future of humanity, it is 99% of all actual climate scientists! And they don't get rich doing it.

I apologize, for getting caught up on this topic in this thread. I hope I have cleared up my points.

 

[larmor]

Re 800v, this is pure speculation (hut, hey, what's TMC for, anyway? ), but I wouldn't be surprised if there are rapidly increasingly
restrictive regulations about proximity of high voltages to consumers. It may be substantially harder to implement a legal way to deliver 800v to someone's car than 400v. If they could pipe 14kv straight into your car think of what they could save on step-down transformers!
Sure, you'd have to worry about headlines such as "Tesla confirms that carbon pile next to P100D found abandoned at Supercharger used to be the car's owner".

Pure speculation is what i'm great at-- why not make a connector and capability to charge from mobile MRI plug, they are 480v (i think). Could be new service, scan and charge...

 

[ecarfan]

If we focus on your lifetime, I will concede the fact that CO2 levels have risen. We know this because we started recording CO2 data in 1957, and continue to measure that in the same way. I will agree that burning fossil fuels creates CO2. I would question that perhaps we have cut down too many trees and plants that would convert CO2 to Oxygen.

There is extensive data on CO2 levels going back hundreds of thousands of years based on ice core samples and other sources.

While it is true that humans are responsible for large amounts of deforestation, humans have also planted huge amounts of crop acreages that contain much more biomass than the open grasslands they often replace. There is simply no way that vegetation changes can explain the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels over the past century.

I do not know the source of the CO2 vs Temp chart you published or where that "data" came from. What I do know is that people who do not believe in anthropogenic climate change love to take carefully selected brief periods of time (and "brief" can be a decade or more") and make charts that show global mean temperatures are not rising. What they do not acknowledge, because they cannot refute it, is that when global mean temperatures are plotted over many decades all the data shows a clear trend to higher temperatures.

 

[3Victoria]

Well, there's at least one question -- I question that. It is contrary to the information available to me. If you can cite a source I'd
be delighted to learn otherwise.
Electric Cars Are Not Necessarily Clean

Even this: The ‘electric cars aren’t green’ myth debunked says:
"Using coal powered electricity electric cars do nothing to cut emissions..."

Play with this app: Carboncounter | Cars evaluated against climate targets
The associated paper is here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.6b00177
"Although the average carbon intensity of vehicles sold in 2014 exceeds the 2030 climate target by more than 50%, most available (P)HEVs and BEVs meet this goal."

 

[WannabeOwner]

Electric Cars Are Not Necessarily Clean

I have huge respect for Scientific American, and of course its a short article not a published paper etc. But this part bothered me:

"those emissions come from hundreds of millions of tailpipes"

Fair enough. However, what about the energy needed to create the gasoline? Things I read say that it is hard to get a real figure out of the refinery industries, with journalists implying that refineries are being economical with the truth and actually using staggering amounts of energy to create the product, often from burning waste byproducts [with inherent pollution/CO2] in generators. Maybe that is taken into account in S.A.'s figure, but "from the tailpipe" reads to me, on the face of it, as only comparing that one half of the problem with 100% of the Electric Generation [from Coal] problem.

Hopefully someone can put me straight on that, one way or the other.