SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
A lot cheaper than the table shows because the Gubmint picks up the liability insurance and subsidizes the disposal.
Nuclear is a rigged market ... and it still cannot compete without additional political corruption.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
"Tesla is a SCAM!!" - BMW Dealership
- Thread starter ImEric
- Start date
Nuclear is a rigged market ... and it still cannot compete without additional political corruption.
Waiting4M3
Active Member
Olle
Active Member
Actually no, because every mass unit of gas burns with 15 units if air. That air is heavier than a Tesla battery. Consuming a typical 50 kg gas tank thus destroys 750 kg of air that a person with asthma somewhere in the world didn't get to breathe. How much did it cost for that person to breath car exhaust instead of air?
Air–fuel ratio - Wikipedia
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
Where did I say there weren't? All energy sources are, to greater or lesser degrees, subsidized because they make our economy work. It's probably one of the few areas where we might want the government to help pick the winners vs. losers since an unstable energy market can cause massive economic and social problems.
Reality today is that ICE cars are cheap and the technology is fully matured so they are quite reliable. Gas is still quite cheap.
EVs are making inroads but they've got quite a ways to go to displace the ICE fleet used in this country, let alone in poorer countries like India or China.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Cute, but your numbers are off.
Hydrocarbons are polymers of CH2 which has a mass of 14 daltons.
A molecule of CO2 has a mass of 44 daltons
So a 50 kg mass of petrol consumes ~ 157 kg of oxygen gas upon complete oxidation*
*I ignore the H20 generated since that is easily and quickly recycled into the biosphere.
Last edited:
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
You think that the internal combustion engine causes people with asthma breathing problems? Wow.
You know that plants produce oxygen, right?
That's not really how it works. The mass air flow meter does not know what gases are present. Only 20% is used, the rest exits the tailpipe the way in came in. So 1 kg of octane changes 3 kg of intake gases. So 4kg will move a vehicle about 40 miles. To move a vehicle with lithium cells 40 miles requires about 100kg of cells.
Krugerrand
Meow
I plan on trolling the dealerships with my 3. You know just drive up and down the aisles, maybe toss them a wave and a head bob. Yes. Yes, I do. That's how I roll.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
What "wow" ?
Certainly combustion products worsen asthma, and turn sub-clinical disease morbid.
Modern cars emit very little emissions except water and CO2 when they are running correctly. NOx can be an issue, but it is short lived.
CO and HC are created in significant amounts only when the emissions controls are not functioning well.
Last edited:
jelloslug
Active Member
The only reason they are cheap is because of the subsidies. If people in this country were paying the true cost for fuel, you would not see nearly the giant SUVs and trucks on the road.
I thought I was the only one planning to do this. I can't wait to drive into their lots and being swarmed with their clients.I plan on trolling the dealerships with my 3. You know just drive up and down the aisles, maybe toss them a wave and a head bob. Yes. Yes, I do. That's how I roll.
Aren't diesel engines main emitters of NOx? What is short lived, the particulates or the breather?
voip-ninja
Give me some sugar baby
Without digging into it, I doubt that's true, there are countries that don't have massive oil subsidies and they don't have extremely high gas prices compared to the US. Most of the higher gas prices in Europe for example are due to much higher taxes.
The 5.3T oil subsidy number is thrown about quite a lot, this guy does a pretty good job taking it apart;
The Real Numbers On Energy Subsidies
Anyways, this thread has become totally OT, so I'll stop piling more onto the trash heap.
Does BMW have dealerships in Germany (ie independent franchisees) or are they company owned? Most US dealerships, even imports like BMW are all independent franchises with commissioned sales people. State laws in most states require franchises, which is a big battle Tesla has been fighting in the courts since the beginning. Some dealerships don't have commissioned sales people, but that is usually a decision on the local level and it is rare.
People in different regions of the US tend to be more or less high pressure. Here in the laid back Portland area, the sales people tend to be helpful, but not pushy. When I was shopping, I had varying experiences, but none were with overly aggressive sales people. When I shopped back in 1992 in Seattle, I had a mixed bag, but I got ignored more than I had to deal with jerks, though there were a couple of jerks.
Not contesting the Model S qualities, but when coming from a Buick, almost every car is superior in every aspect.
I thought my Buick was quite a nice car. It wasn't as cushy as a Mercedes or a modern BMW, but it was a nice car and incredibly reliable. Here in the US we have a ratings company called JD Powers which looks at long term vehicle dependability and rates the nameplates based on quality issues over the first several years of ownership. Buick was top rated several years and they are still up near the top. For 2017 they are #4 behind Lexus, Porsche, and Toyota. BMW is #7. Definitely better than average.
Exactly. They are looking to fit into the regulatory restrictions coming at them from their own governments, just as American automakers are most concerned about meeting CAFE requirements. Competing with Tesla is a secondary goal for European automakers, but it is important too. European luxury brands have been burned the worst by Tesla so far and they see the Model 3 as more of a threat than Japanese, Korean, or American automakers see them.
A lot of the US is more spread out. My only road trip in my Model S was 1800 miles and that wasn't all that long by American standards. My SO's law partner drives 180 miles back and forth to Seattle several times a month.
The early stuff from the Model 3 indicates the motor on the Model 3 is more efficient than the S/X. The Model 3 is built for efficiency over performance while the S was designed as a performance sedan to prove to the world that an electric could be a sports car.
The low tech approach to the battery might contribute to longer battery life. I understand the engineering trade offs between large batteries and lots of individual cells. Heat is what kills batteries and Tesla is able to control the temperature in the battery pack very precisely with their cooling method and the smaller cells. When we have good solid state batteries, I expect Tesla will go with a larger cell size. It will be whatever size hits the sweet spot between cooling and capacity.
In Washington State, throwing a cat at someone is assault with a deadly weapon. My SO has had a client who was charged with that when he threw the family cat at his girlfriend in an argument. Assault with a deadly weapon in this state is defined as attacking someone with something that could kill or cause grievous bodily harm (ie permanent loss of something). A flailing cat is capable of blinding someone, so it fits into the grievous body harm category.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
That is a result of cost externalities, which is an HUUUUGE indirect subsidy.
Oil Subsidies are like Area 51 conspiracy theories. They will never go away and both have significant 'educated' backers and both are equally accurate.
Wow with Model 3s and S and Xs out there they must be desperate to lock in people who might be ready to buy soon into another one of their cars. To say what she did though, personally I would have hung up on her at that point but not before saying sorry, but you've made up my mind and don't call me again.
With proper management li-ion batteries hold up quite well over time. There are people who have Teslas from 2012 and 2013 still driving on the original battery and they have only seen about 5-10% degradation. But even accepting that batteries do lose capacity with age, with an ICE lots of things degrade with age: all the moving parts in the engine, seals, fuel pump, water pump, alternator, transmission, etc. Not to mention periodic oil changes, changing belts, hoses, etc.
My Buick had effectively less range when I sold it than when I bought it because the fuel tank had accumulated gunk in the bottom that meant when the car got down to about 2 gallons, it was a good idea to put gas in or the car ran very poorly.
The drive train in an EV is vastly simpler than an ICE which means a lot less maintenance as time goes on, even if the batteries do degrade, it's one of the few things that do.
Solid state batteries are coming. There are several different chemistries being tested in labs now and there is a good chance at least one of them will be showing up in EVs early next decade. The initial range boost will probably be somewhere around 2X over current tech, which means the flagship Tesla Model S will be getting around 600 miles on a single charge. For most people, that's en entire day's driving. Solid state batteries might be able to be charged faster too, which would allow the "iron butt" drivers to drive cross country almost non-stop. But people who drive more than 8 hours in a day are not that common.
And even with the current situation, road tripping is actually more pleasant. I have done 600 miles in one day in my Model S. It took a little longer, but I wasn't as worn out as when I did that much in an ICE because I had forced stops where I had to get out and walk around. I also saw some things I wouldn't have seen otherwise. And the stops for supercharging aren't really that long. If you are stopping to eat too, the car will usually be done before you are unless you wolf your food.
I do believe fossil fuels will be around for 50 years or so. For some applications, it's going to be a while before battery tech can replace them, like aircraft. Electric aircraft exist, but the are short range curiosities and will remain that way as long as the energy density of batteries is so low compared to fossil fuels. Some long range driving situations like into the outback of Australia or some remote places in North America will require ICE because you can carry 1000 miles worth of fuel with you and it doesn't take up all your space.
Ships too will probably remain fossil fueled for some time, though new tech sailing might become a supplement to fossil fuel engines. One reason fossil fuels replaced sails was the speed, but another factor was manpower. Maintaining sails in the old days required a lot of people which is expensive, but computerized sail management could allow ships to navigate on wind power quite cheaply. It would be good for cargo that is low priority and could afford to take a little longer to get there.
For surface land transport, electricity will probably replace ICE over the next few decades. Once the disruption starts, the limit will be how fast battery factories can be built. Once people learn how much better EVs are, in every way, there is no going back. Even if it does take a little longer to charge them, that makes no difference for daily use, and it isn't that big a deal on the road when you make the cognitive adjustment.
⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️
Village Idiot
I inherited a '97 Buick Le Sabre a few years back. Definitely the worst car I've ever owned reliability wise and driving dynamics wise. I'm sure not all Buick models are created equally though.
Similar threads
