5 ms·

I visited a Tesla store once in mountain view, and they have a great little demo where you can check the cost of charging your car in various states. Washingto

by ouid 9y ago

I visited a Tesla store once in mountain view, and they have a great little demo where you can check the cost of charging your car in various states. Washington DC, for whatever reason, gets its electricity from a gasoline power plant. In Washington, the Model S gets 28 MPG. This happened a while ago so I could be misremembering, but regardless I don't believe that the environmental value of electric vehicles has been realized. In a lot of places, your Tesla is still coal powered. Efficient internal combustion engines are still a worthy cause, and this will continue until more electricity is being produced than is normally consumed.

oh_sigh 9y ago
That is wrong. Almost all of the energy DC uses comes from its interconnect to the RFC grid. Locally, it does look like 2/3rd of the power DC generates is nat gas, and 1/3rd gas or gas-like, but it doesn't make sense in a grid structure to assume that the energy produced near you is the energy you use. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=DC#tabs-1 https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=DC#tabs-1
- connorcpu 9y ago
  Given that its neighbors' top two electricity sources seem to be Nat Gas and Nuclear, seems probable that most of the electricity comes from those sources
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    You should really just take a weighted average of all the things putting energy onto the eastern interconnect grid(including grid-tied home solar installations, but those are probably negligible in the grand scheme of things at this point). The reality is that anyone in the US, east of the rockies and not in texas will have the same 'mpg equivalent' for their Tesla.
pkulak 9y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe#Criticism The biggest nail in the coffin of the long tailpipe fallacy is that you can drive an EV farther on the power needed to refine a gallon of gas than you can drive a ICE car on that same gallon. So, even if you built a gasoline engine that had absolutely no emissions, and oil bubbled up into crude lakes right next to every refinery, EVs would still be more efficient.
- ouid 9y ago
  Refining gasoline seems to be ~88% efficient per your source. While this isn't negligible, it hardly changes the argument.
  - pkulak 9y ago
    Sure. And an EV can drive ~25 miles on the energy in that 12%.
- calibration263 9y ago
  Your article states 87.7% efficiency in gasoline refining. Energy density of gasoline is 34.2 MJ/L: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density This means there was 4.8 MJ of energy spent to create 1L of gasoline. The 70kWh(250MJ) tesla is reported to have 390KM range. 4.8 MJ would be 1.92% of the range, or about 7.5km. The Mazda 3 has a combined fuel economy rating of 33 MPG, which is about 14KPL. As far s I can tell, your statement that an EV can go further on the power needed to refine a gallon of gas, than an ICE car can drive is off by a factor of almost two. That said, arguing an electric car can go a certain distance based on inefficiencies of another unrelated process is not a very meaningful argument. You need to look at the efficiencies and CO2 produced for drilling/transporting/refining/burning gas vs producing/transmitting/storing/using electric power, and probably the costs of dealing with peak loads vs non-peak loads, and even then the argument is heavily weighted on where your power comes from.
  - pkulak 9y ago
    Well, the US average for fuel efficiency is 25, not 33. And the Model S is one of the least efficient EVs, for worse than the average. Adjust both those numbers in the right directions and your math lines up with my point nicely.
outworlder 9y ago
> This happened a while ago so I could be misremembering, but regardless I don't believe that the environmental value of electric vehicles has been realized Indeed. However, look at it this way: which is easier to replace, the entire fleet, or centralized power plants? Every time a new windmill or solar panel is added, your Tesla gets that much cleaner. And that's something you can do yourself if you want to. Electricity is fungible and your car could not care less where it came from. Oil changes have a non-negligible impact for the environment as well. And then there are all those components that have to be replaced from time to time and end up in landfills (spark plugs/cables, timing belts, etc). So I believe electric cars today are already a net gain. And, even if they polluted more, the pollution is centralized in the power plants, which is easier to do something about. There are problem health benefits from moving pollution away from population centers. I make a point of going to parks with my EV. I know it's a token gesture, but I like to think I'm not blowing dirty fumes next to animal habitats. It helps that California is reasonably clean.
- Lazare 9y ago
  > However, look at it this way: which is easier to replace, the entire fleet, or centralized power plants? The entire fleet I'd think. It's certainly much more likely to happen first. (Cars have a much shorter average lifespan than power plants; the natural gas power plants we're building right now have a designed lifespan of up to 50 years. Very few cars coming of the production line today will be on the road in 50 years.)
petre 9y ago
Agreed, but there is also incentive to install solar panels on your home/garage to charge your car. Too bad most of us are at work (car out of garage) during peak sun hours, so it gets more complicated. Maybe this is the reason Tesla also wants to sell a 10 kWh battery along with a solar roof.
icc97 9y ago
Electric cars are the real world example of loose coupling. Once your car is electric the source of the electricity can change (from Coal -> Gas -> Solar) and you don't have to change your car even slightly. So it doesn't matter about any of the arguments about whether an electric car is more efficient or not when the electricity comes from coal. What matters is that having electric cars enables us to move to a future of solar and wind and not notice the difference. Plus having electric cars that don't pollute in cities where there are lots of people and generating the electricity with coal fired powerstations outside of cities where there are less people has immediate benefits.
- bgarbiak 9y ago
  I'm as big fan of EVs as the next guy, and would love to see cities with clean air and no noise. But, there are few things that we forget about when we talk about zero-emmision cars. EVs pollute less, but they pollute too, and in cities as well. They emit dust (including the most harmful particles: PM10 and PM2.5) from break discs and tires. Difference between CO2 in power plants and in city centers matters, but not that much. Once it's in the atmosphere the damage is done. As for NOx, the biggest offender in the dieselgate, Mazda's engines should not emit these. Add a fact that in the current grid setup most of the energy is coming from coal, and that it's very unlikely it is going to change in a near future (mainly due to political reasons). Also, the waste from batteries is really ugly. Given all that factors a 30% less polluting combustion engine is almost too good to be true. From a macro perspective the gain for environment is on par, if not better, than from electric cars. My biggest problem is to believe in the numbers Mazda provides. Have to wait and see.
  - reacweb 9y ago
    EV should consume less brake discs because small braking recharges the battery.
    - secmax 9y ago
      That is/could be true for hybrid cars too.
Shivetya 9y ago
What they should be doing is showing changes to range and costs throughout the year. During mild to warm months my EV range on a Volt is much better but come winter. Same goes for pure EVs. Pure EVs are not truly viable even with the Tesla network for long trips, once past a two charge trip you timing has to be truly altered and it gets worse in hilly country or winter. Now in winter gasoline/diesel cars have the issue of nearly always running rich on very short commutes as they strive to get to an optimal operating temperature. The EV just loses a serious chunk of range. Both of course can be preconditioned but the EV is more efficient there. As for Mazda. None of the electrification upcoming laws exclude fuel powered vehicles, range extenders and hybrids all seem to meet many requirements. older article about range/ev/winter http://www.teslarati.com/effects-winter-tesla-battery-range/ http://www.teslarati.com/effects-winter-tesla-battery-range/ I hope they have corrected how regenerative braking works since then
- lps41 9y ago
  I think the long-trip problem is solved by families owning one gas or hybrid car, and one pure EV car. Or even two pure EVs, and planning to rent a gas powered car for long trips!

by ouid 9y ago

oh_sigh 9y ago

That is wrong. Almost all of the energy DC uses comes from its interconnect to the RFC grid. Locally, it does look like 2/3rd of the power DC generates is nat gas, and 1/3rd gas or gas-like, but it doesn't make sense in a grid structure to assume that the energy produced near you is the energy you use. https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=DC#tabs-1 https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=DC#tabs-1

connorcpu 9y ago
Given that its neighbors' top two electricity sources seem to be Nat Gas and Nuclear, seems probable that most of the electricity comes from those sources
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  You should really just take a weighted average of all the things putting energy onto the eastern interconnect grid(including grid-tied home solar installations, but those are probably negligible in the grand scheme of things at this point). The reality is that anyone in the US, east of the rockies and not in texas will have the same 'mpg equivalent' for their Tesla.

pkulak 9y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_tailpipe#Criticism The biggest nail in the coffin of the long tailpipe fallacy is that you can drive an EV farther on the power needed to refine a gallon of gas than you can drive a ICE car on that same gallon. So, even if you built a gasoline engine that had absolutely no emissions, and oil bubbled up into crude lakes right next to every refinery, EVs would still be more efficient.

ouid 9y ago
Refining gasoline seems to be ~88% efficient per your source. While this isn't negligible, it hardly changes the argument.
- pkulak 9y ago
  Sure. And an EV can drive ~25 miles on the energy in that 12%.
calibration263 9y ago
Your article states 87.7% efficiency in gasoline refining. Energy density of gasoline is 34.2 MJ/L: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density This means there was 4.8 MJ of energy spent to create 1L of gasoline. The 70kWh(250MJ) tesla is reported to have 390KM range. 4.8 MJ would be 1.92% of the range, or about 7.5km. The Mazda 3 has a combined fuel economy rating of 33 MPG, which is about 14KPL. As far s I can tell, your statement that an EV can go further on the power needed to refine a gallon of gas, than an ICE car can drive is off by a factor of almost two. That said, arguing an electric car can go a certain distance based on inefficiencies of another unrelated process is not a very meaningful argument. You need to look at the efficiencies and CO2 produced for drilling/transporting/refining/burning gas vs producing/transmitting/storing/using electric power, and probably the costs of dealing with peak loads vs non-peak loads, and even then the argument is heavily weighted on where your power comes from.
- pkulak 9y ago
  Well, the US average for fuel efficiency is 25, not 33. And the Model S is one of the least efficient EVs, for worse than the average. Adjust both those numbers in the right directions and your math lines up with my point nicely.

outworlder 9y ago

> This happened a while ago so I could be misremembering, but regardless I don't believe that the environmental value of electric vehicles has been realized Indeed. However, look at it this way: which is easier to replace, the entire fleet, or centralized power plants? Every time a new windmill or solar panel is added, your Tesla gets that much cleaner. And that's something you can do yourself if you want to. Electricity is fungible and your car could not care less where it came from. Oil changes have a non-negligible impact for the environment as well. And then there are all those components that have to be replaced from time to time and end up in landfills (spark plugs/cables, timing belts, etc). So I believe electric cars today are already a net gain. And, even if they polluted more, the pollution is centralized in the power plants, which is easier to do something about. There are problem health benefits from moving pollution away from population centers. I make a point of going to parks with my EV. I know it's a token gesture, but I like to think I'm not blowing dirty fumes next to animal habitats. It helps that California is reasonably clean.

Lazare 9y ago
> However, look at it this way: which is easier to replace, the entire fleet, or centralized power plants? The entire fleet I'd think. It's certainly much more likely to happen first. (Cars have a much shorter average lifespan than power plants; the natural gas power plants we're building right now have a designed lifespan of up to 50 years. Very few cars coming of the production line today will be on the road in 50 years.)

petre 9y ago

Agreed, but there is also incentive to install solar panels on your home/garage to charge your car. Too bad most of us are at work (car out of garage) during peak sun hours, so it gets more complicated. Maybe this is the reason Tesla also wants to sell a 10 kWh battery along with a solar roof.

icc97 9y ago

Electric cars are the real world example of loose coupling. Once your car is electric the source of the electricity can change (from Coal -> Gas -> Solar) and you don't have to change your car even slightly. So it doesn't matter about any of the arguments about whether an electric car is more efficient or not when the electricity comes from coal. What matters is that having electric cars enables us to move to a future of solar and wind and not notice the difference. Plus having electric cars that don't pollute in cities where there are lots of people and generating the electricity with coal fired powerstations outside of cities where there are less people has immediate benefits.

bgarbiak 9y ago
I'm as big fan of EVs as the next guy, and would love to see cities with clean air and no noise. But, there are few things that we forget about when we talk about zero-emmision cars. EVs pollute less, but they pollute too, and in cities as well. They emit dust (including the most harmful particles: PM10 and PM2.5) from break discs and tires. Difference between CO2 in power plants and in city centers matters, but not that much. Once it's in the atmosphere the damage is done. As for NOx, the biggest offender in the dieselgate, Mazda's engines should not emit these. Add a fact that in the current grid setup most of the energy is coming from coal, and that it's very unlikely it is going to change in a near future (mainly due to political reasons). Also, the waste from batteries is really ugly. Given all that factors a 30% less polluting combustion engine is almost too good to be true. From a macro perspective the gain for environment is on par, if not better, than from electric cars. My biggest problem is to believe in the numbers Mazda provides. Have to wait and see.
- reacweb 9y ago
  EV should consume less brake discs because small braking recharges the battery.
  - secmax 9y ago
    That is/could be true for hybrid cars too.

Shivetya 9y ago

What they should be doing is showing changes to range and costs throughout the year. During mild to warm months my EV range on a Volt is much better but come winter. Same goes for pure EVs. Pure EVs are not truly viable even with the Tesla network for long trips, once past a two charge trip you timing has to be truly altered and it gets worse in hilly country or winter. Now in winter gasoline/diesel cars have the issue of nearly always running rich on very short commutes as they strive to get to an optimal operating temperature. The EV just loses a serious chunk of range. Both of course can be preconditioned but the EV is more efficient there. As for Mazda. None of the electrification upcoming laws exclude fuel powered vehicles, range extenders and hybrids all seem to meet many requirements. older article about range/ev/winter http://www.teslarati.com/effects-winter-tesla-battery-range/ http://www.teslarati.com/effects-winter-tesla-battery-range/ I hope they have corrected how regenerative braking works since then

lps41 9y ago
I think the long-trip problem is solved by families owning one gas or hybrid car, and one pure EV car. Or even two pure EVs, and planning to rent a gas powered car for long trips!