Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News' started by ambphx, Mar 17, 2016.
Have you guys seen this article?
Articles: The Dirty Little Secret about All-Electric Vehicles
No I have to move. My entire house is full of the "bull" ifrom this article and the comments. Thanks for nothing.
Are you trolling or uninformed? If uninformed, please see this: How Tesla Will Change The World - Wait But Why
EDIT: my apologies if you are bringing it here just for laughs
I don't know if this particular article has been discussed before, but there have been dozens of similar articles discussed, and there will be many more. Most people don't do the math and don't follow sources (even if they are listed), so it's an easy to argument to fudge.
But his numbers are way, way off. UCS, US DOE, UC Davis, US DOD, Sierra Club and many others have done well-researched, peer-reviewed reports with far different numbers.
Elon is on top, riding the incumbents.
Debate the long tailpipe argument all you want, but ultimately the argument is meaningless. No one in this movement thinks that EVs by themselves solve everything. EVs are just an important piece of the puzzle. Of course, power generation needs to change as well to low or no carbon sustainable sources. That movement is under way too. Nuclear, which I'm a proponent of, is stalled in debate despite it's merits, but solar and wind have a real chance at becoming big players. And I might add, what makes solar and wind viable despite their variability is grid storage solutions which are improving significantly. Again, this is partially and possibly soon to be primarily due to the work of Tesla Motors with their Tesla Energy products.
Yes, someone sent it to me for my amusement.
1. He pretends that renewables can't really be used to generate grid power because they are "unreliable" even though large grids already include lots of renewables today. California is already averaging 25% renewables on the grid and that's without counting lots of large hydro and some nuclear. CA is on track to go from 25% today to 33% in 2020 and has already set a 2030 target of 50%.
2. He talks about conversion efficiencies of steam turbine generators but forgets to mention co-generation or mainstream combined cycle designs that are 50-60% efficient overall.
3. He doesn't understand grid transmission and distribution at all. He thinks 67% of the power gets lost during transmission and distribution when the actual number is about 6% in the US and 9% globally. He thinks grid transmission is at 440V rather than the 115,000 - 765,000 volt lines that are actually used. He doesn't understand how neighborhood transformers work either.
4. He doesn't understand that the large majority of electric car charging will be done overnight at off-peak hours when the grid has plenty of excess capacity even for huge numbers of EVs.
5. He doesn't realize that his Ford F-150 -- even the new all-aluminum one with the most efficient gas engine option -- emits about twice the CO2 of a large Tesla Model X CUV running on US average electricity (485g per mile vs 240g per mile). Numbers sourced from fueleconomy.gov and include upstream emissions from refining etc.
It's an obvious hit piece by someone who doesn't understand what he's writing about.
6. Writer does not even attempt to estimate pollution through exploration, drilling, distribution, refining and evaporative losses. Wars and interventionism needed to keep oil flowing are not mentioned either.
Yes, this article was already discussed and thoroughly debunked.
Not to mention soon enough that solar power is what's going to power majority of electrical consumption. Nice try though.
Solar is very reliable, if you have enough storage.
There are power factor deficiencies in old inverters, but as I've crowed about a number of times, that can easily be solved (with technology (communication standards for power factor compensation in the supply (inverters))), so as soon as it becomes a REAL issue for a large enough portion of the market, that gets solved too.
And finally, although it's a far stretch, at some point in the distant future, we can, if we CHOOSE to (this is a big if) create a multi-timezone grid capable of moving sunlight into dark areas. (Superconductors help, but are only one option.) I believe a little of this is already done today by virtue of the size of the grids currently in use and the availability of sunlight -- there must be dozens of examples of sunlight being moved to dark areas even today. California could benefit from huge arrays in the Pacific Ocean stretching across many hours West, and once electric transit (beams? cables? held up in the air by blimps?) is handled, we'd almost not need batteries any more, except for those hemispheric dark weather events.
Whether Tesla Energy becomes a major storage provider or not, the press and public attention it gets have helped all storage suppliers. There are a number of potentially less expensive solutions to the storage problems than are li-ion cells, but they undoubtedly have a role to play in distributed storage, especially in space-limited locations such as existing buildings and residences.
I personally am a big fan of Tesla but I also think hydrogen may have a big future if the production process can be economically solved. With so many renewable power generation possibilities, nearly all of which are neither immediate nor stable, the world needs a great variety of storage solutions too. Everything from the PSA hydraulic solution, to pumped water, molten metals, as well as a wide variety of chemical storage solutions probably have a role to play.
The wonder of Tesla and Elon's role in all this has been to capture the public imagination... not to mention ours, by producing such phenomenal vehicles.
Now to be selfish; I really want a Tesla in Brazil. I already have solar and storage, albeit more primitive than li-ion, but my ancient lead-acid does work, does last and is very cheap. Now all I need is a car to use part of my power!