Tesla Ride
08-04-2010, 06:38 PM
#46
Race Director
You are twisting my words. I commented on energy efficiency not production costs. You justified the 18-20% ICE efficiency saying "According to a number of annotated sources, the efficiency of the average internal combustion engine is in the range of 18-20% in terms of translating the energy stored in gasoline into motive power to the vehicle." I simply replied that you had to do the same analysis to compute the electrical motor total energy efficiency not just its electrical to mechanical efficiency. Apples to apples. 
I dug a little deeper to find something that would summarize the argument in a way more directly relevant to cars. To your point, the efficiency of the electric motor in an automotive application apparently drops to about 80%; still more than 4 times better than the gasoline engine under normal conditions. (Now we have apples to apples
). The information below is from an extensive Wikipedia article on electric vehicles. Before anyone starts with Wikipedia this or liberal bias that, read the article and judge it's completeness and references for yourself, or at the least present some data that is to the contrary. 
Anyway, make of this what you will.Internal combustion engines are relatively inefficient at converting on-board fuel energy to propulsion as most of the energy is wasted as heat. On the other hand, electric motors are more efficient in converting stored energy into driving a vehicle, and electric drive vehicles do not consume energy while at rest or coasting, and some of the energy lost when braking is captured and reused through regenerative braking, which captures as much as one fifth of the energy normally lost during braking. Typically, conventional gasoline engines effectively use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power accessories, and diesel engines can reach on-board efficiencies of 20%, while electric drive vehicles have on-board efficiency of around 80%.
Production and conversion electric cars typically use 10 to 23 kW·h/100 km (0.17 to 0.37 kW·h/mi). Approximately 20% of this power consumption is due to inefficiencies in charging the batteries. Tesla Motors indicates that the vehicle efficiency (including charging inefficiencies) of their lithium-ion battery powered vehicle is 12.7 kW·h/100 km (0.21 kW·h/mi) and the well-to-wheels efficiency (assuming the electricity is generated from natural gas) is 24.4 kW·h/100 km (0.39 kW·h/mi). The US fleet average of 10 l/100 km (24 mpg-US) of gasoline is equivalent to 96 kW·h/100 km (1.58 kW·h/mi), and the Honda Insight uses 32 kW·h/100 km (0.52 kW·h/mi) (assuming 9.6 kW·h per liter of gasoline).
The waste heat generated by an ICE is frequently put to beneficial use by heating the vehicle interior. Electric vehicles generate very little waste heat and resistance electric heat may have to be used to heat the interior of the vehicle if heat generated from battery charging/discharging can not be used to heat the interior. Electric vehicles used in cold weather will show increased energy consumption and reduced battery capacity and so decreased range on a single charge, for example the Mini E's range dropped by 30% in cold weather.
Last edited by Mike in CA; 08-04-2010 at 07:01 PM.
08-04-2010, 06:52 PM
#47
[QUOTE=GVA-SFO;7787571]@ KBS911 wrote:
Well, you can search for any tiny particles of CO2 all over of whatever productions, but do not forget one thing: a gasoline engine have a maximum theoretical efficiency ratio of about 25%, and this, ..at the optimal temp, with the optimal rpm, at the optimal load, and, etc..
So, in average, if you get 15% for real, this is just beautiful.
We can say that one quart of premium 91 is about equal to 10kWh, but when you feed a gasoline engine with one quart of gasoline, not much more than 1.5 kWh is used to accelerate your car, the rest, i.e.: 8.5kWh, does NOTHING else than warming up the planet.
(Also, not forgetting that, when you touch the brakes, the kinetic energy accumulated with this “15%”, ..just go ALL in heat too !!)
Should I add now that a good electric motor can have an efficiency ratio that is close to 99% ??
Or: As drivers of gasoline based cars, ..I think we should leave the production of batteries in peace, out of critics that looks like mosquitos next to an elephant.
You are missing the point. Despite the relative energy efficiency of an electric motor the carbon cost to produce that battery, raw materials mined, shipped overseas for assembly in yet another country, the carbon cost of keeping that battery charged, and the cost of disposing of that battery once it's service life is expended, only to be replaced with another consumable is significant. Don't look now but it's not a mosquito, there is an 800 lb goriila in the room. Bzzzzz........................................
Well, you can search for any tiny particles of CO2 all over of whatever productions, but do not forget one thing: a gasoline engine have a maximum theoretical efficiency ratio of about 25%, and this, ..at the optimal temp, with the optimal rpm, at the optimal load, and, etc..
So, in average, if you get 15% for real, this is just beautiful.
We can say that one quart of premium 91 is about equal to 10kWh, but when you feed a gasoline engine with one quart of gasoline, not much more than 1.5 kWh is used to accelerate your car, the rest, i.e.: 8.5kWh, does NOTHING else than warming up the planet.
(Also, not forgetting that, when you touch the brakes, the kinetic energy accumulated with this “15%”, ..just go ALL in heat too !!)
Should I add now that a good electric motor can have an efficiency ratio that is close to 99% ??
Or: As drivers of gasoline based cars, ..I think we should leave the production of batteries in peace, out of critics that looks like mosquitos next to an elephant.
You are missing the point. Despite the relative energy efficiency of an electric motor the carbon cost to produce that battery, raw materials mined, shipped overseas for assembly in yet another country, the carbon cost of keeping that battery charged, and the cost of disposing of that battery once it's service life is expended, only to be replaced with another consumable is significant. Don't look now but it's not a mosquito, there is an 800 lb goriila in the room. Bzzzzz........................................
08-04-2010, 08:13 PM
#48
Nordschleife Master
[QUOTE=KBS911;7789600]
It's not worth arguing, as you can see. Let the EVs roll and be happy, if they can.
@ KBS911 wrote:
You are missing the point. Despite the relative energy efficiency of an electric motor the carbon cost to produce that battery, raw materials mined, shipped overseas for assembly in yet another country, the carbon cost of keeping that battery charged, and the cost of disposing of that battery once it's service life is expended, only to be replaced with another consumable is significant. Don't look now but it's not a mosquito, there is an 800 lb goriila in the room. Bzzzzz........................................
Well, you can search for any tiny particles of CO2 all over of whatever productions, but do not forget one thing: a gasoline engine have a maximum theoretical efficiency ratio of about 25%, and this, ..at the optimal temp, with the optimal rpm, at the optimal load, and, etc..
So, in average, if you get 15% for real, this is just beautiful.
We can say that one quart of premium 91 is about equal to 10kWh, but when you feed a gasoline engine with one quart of gasoline, not much more than 1.5 kWh is used to accelerate your car, the rest, i.e.: 8.5kWh, does NOTHING else than warming up the planet.
(Also, not forgetting that, when you touch the brakes, the kinetic energy accumulated with this “15%”, ..just go ALL in heat too !!)
Should I add now that a good electric motor can have an efficiency ratio that is close to 99% ??
Or: As drivers of gasoline based cars, ..I think we should leave the production of batteries in peace, out of critics that looks like mosquitos next to an elephant.
So, in average, if you get 15% for real, this is just beautiful.
We can say that one quart of premium 91 is about equal to 10kWh, but when you feed a gasoline engine with one quart of gasoline, not much more than 1.5 kWh is used to accelerate your car, the rest, i.e.: 8.5kWh, does NOTHING else than warming up the planet.
(Also, not forgetting that, when you touch the brakes, the kinetic energy accumulated with this “15%”, ..just go ALL in heat too !!)
Should I add now that a good electric motor can have an efficiency ratio that is close to 99% ??
Or: As drivers of gasoline based cars, ..I think we should leave the production of batteries in peace, out of critics that looks like mosquitos next to an elephant.
It's not worth arguing, as you can see. Let the EVs roll and be happy, if they can.
08-04-2010, 08:15 PM
#49
Nordschleife Master
I think we're getting caught up in verbage here and some misunderstanding; I certainly didn't mean to twist your words.
I dug a little deeper to find something that would summarize the argument in a way more directly relevant to cars. To your point, the efficiency of the electric motor in an automotive application apparently drops to about 80%; still more than 4 times better than the gasoline engine under normal conditions. (Now we have apples to apples). The information below is from an extensive Wikipedia article on electric vehicles. Before anyone starts with Wikipedia this or liberal bias that, read the article and judge it's completeness and references for yourself, or at the least present some data that is to the contrary. Anyway, make of this what you will.
Internal combustion engines are relatively inefficient at converting on-board fuel energy to propulsion as most of the energy is wasted as heat. On the other hand, electric motors are more efficient in converting stored energy into driving a vehicle, and electric drive vehicles do not consume energy while at rest or coasting, and some of the energy lost when braking is captured and reused through regenerative braking, which captures as much as one fifth of the energy normally lost during braking. Typically, conventional gasoline engines effectively use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power accessories, and diesel engines can reach on-board efficiencies of 20%, while electric drive vehicles have on-board efficiency of around 80%.
Production and conversion electric cars typically use 10 to 23 kW·h/100 km (0.17 to 0.37 kW·h/mi). Approximately 20% of this power consumption is due to inefficiencies in charging the batteries. Tesla Motors indicates that the vehicle efficiency (including charging inefficiencies) of their lithium-ion battery powered vehicle is 12.7 kW·h/100 km (0.21 kW·h/mi) and the well-to-wheels efficiency (assuming the electricity is generated from natural gas) is 24.4 kW·h/100 km (0.39 kW·h/mi). The US fleet average of 10 l/100 km (24 mpg-US) of gasoline is equivalent to 96 kW·h/100 km (1.58 kW·h/mi), and the Honda Insight uses 32 kW·h/100 km (0.52 kW·h/mi) (assuming 9.6 kW·h per liter of gasoline).
The waste heat generated by an ICE is frequently put to beneficial use by heating the vehicle interior. Electric vehicles generate very little waste heat and resistance electric heat may have to be used to heat the interior of the vehicle if heat generated from battery charging/discharging can not be used to heat the interior. Electric vehicles used in cold weather will show increased energy consumption and reduced battery capacity and so decreased range on a single charge, for example the Mini E's range dropped by 30% in cold weather.
I dug a little deeper to find something that would summarize the argument in a way more directly relevant to cars. To your point, the efficiency of the electric motor in an automotive application apparently drops to about 80%; still more than 4 times better than the gasoline engine under normal conditions. (Now we have apples to apples
). The information below is from an extensive Wikipedia article on electric vehicles. Before anyone starts with Wikipedia this or liberal bias that, read the article and judge it's completeness and references for yourself, or at the least present some data that is to the contrary. Anyway, make of this what you will.Internal combustion engines are relatively inefficient at converting on-board fuel energy to propulsion as most of the energy is wasted as heat. On the other hand, electric motors are more efficient in converting stored energy into driving a vehicle, and electric drive vehicles do not consume energy while at rest or coasting, and some of the energy lost when braking is captured and reused through regenerative braking, which captures as much as one fifth of the energy normally lost during braking. Typically, conventional gasoline engines effectively use only 15% of the fuel energy content to move the vehicle or to power accessories, and diesel engines can reach on-board efficiencies of 20%, while electric drive vehicles have on-board efficiency of around 80%.
Production and conversion electric cars typically use 10 to 23 kW·h/100 km (0.17 to 0.37 kW·h/mi). Approximately 20% of this power consumption is due to inefficiencies in charging the batteries. Tesla Motors indicates that the vehicle efficiency (including charging inefficiencies) of their lithium-ion battery powered vehicle is 12.7 kW·h/100 km (0.21 kW·h/mi) and the well-to-wheels efficiency (assuming the electricity is generated from natural gas) is 24.4 kW·h/100 km (0.39 kW·h/mi). The US fleet average of 10 l/100 km (24 mpg-US) of gasoline is equivalent to 96 kW·h/100 km (1.58 kW·h/mi), and the Honda Insight uses 32 kW·h/100 km (0.52 kW·h/mi) (assuming 9.6 kW·h per liter of gasoline).
The waste heat generated by an ICE is frequently put to beneficial use by heating the vehicle interior. Electric vehicles generate very little waste heat and resistance electric heat may have to be used to heat the interior of the vehicle if heat generated from battery charging/discharging can not be used to heat the interior. Electric vehicles used in cold weather will show increased energy consumption and reduced battery capacity and so decreased range on a single charge, for example the Mini E's range dropped by 30% in cold weather.
But you still fail to see how you came up to the 20% ICE efficiency number. No it's not apples to apples.
08-04-2010, 08:37 PM
#50
Race Director
08-05-2010, 03:00 AM
#51
Well, first of all: Sorry to have generated this warm discussion, but, ..this is physics, so it is good for our brains.
I was just trying to defend EVs, ..even if I do not drive any one presently, I do respect them.
By the way, ADias, I do not think it is "fair" to say :
As, ..in the above assumptions, for an ICE, we are comparing the energy (gasoline) that is "sitting" in the tank of a car !!!
Now, if you really want to compare "end to end", (i.e.: electric production, transport, etc..), than, imo, Apple for Apple would mean that for the gasoline, ..you will have to include for example : the ratio of efficiency of refineries, the transport & stocking of oil (& gasoline), the extraction of oil, the drillings (the good ones and the bad ones), and, etc...
And then, ..good luck !
(Just think about the ratio of efficiency of a refinery... this hurt.)
I was just trying to defend EVs, ..even if I do not drive any one presently, I do respect them.
By the way, ADias, I do not think it is "fair" to say :
You have to calculate the electric motor efficiency the same way you calculate the ICE efficiency, all the way to the coal/oil intrinsic energy firing up the electric powerplant...
Now, if you really want to compare "end to end", (i.e.: electric production, transport, etc..), than, imo, Apple for Apple would mean that for the gasoline, ..you will have to include for example : the ratio of efficiency of refineries, the transport & stocking of oil (& gasoline), the extraction of oil, the drillings (the good ones and the bad ones), and, etc...
And then, ..good luck !
(Just think about the ratio of efficiency of a refinery... this hurt.)
08-05-2010, 08:07 PM
#52
Well, let's quit "Theory" and let's try to compare the rides in a kind of practical manner, much more easier to understand :
(only keeping in mind one "reality" : one gallon of "premium" is about equal to 37kWh)
If we say that a Tesla, (that has a curb weight around 2750 lbs) would "do" about 200 miles with a 55kWh load, what's about saying that a 996 (my example..) that has a kind of similar curb weight, with 12 gallons, I'm good for about 220 miles.
So, these 12 gallons are equivalent to an energy of about 450 kWh, right ?
Then, between the two rides, (and the two "masses" to move) it become quite simple to compare the energy used: I "do" less than 0.5 miles per kWh, while the Tesla do 3.6 miles per kWh !
Ok, I agree, my old C4 is a little more heavier (probably 10%) than the Tesla, but altogether, it seems pretty clear to me that the Tesla is doing 7 times better in energy !
I think this factor (7) is pretty much in line with the numbers that I expressed in a previous post !
(only keeping in mind one "reality" : one gallon of "premium" is about equal to 37kWh)
If we say that a Tesla, (that has a curb weight around 2750 lbs) would "do" about 200 miles with a 55kWh load, what's about saying that a 996 (my example..) that has a kind of similar curb weight, with 12 gallons, I'm good for about 220 miles.
So, these 12 gallons are equivalent to an energy of about 450 kWh, right ?
Then, between the two rides, (and the two "masses" to move) it become quite simple to compare the energy used: I "do" less than 0.5 miles per kWh, while the Tesla do 3.6 miles per kWh !
Ok, I agree, my old C4 is a little more heavier (probably 10%) than the Tesla, but altogether, it seems pretty clear to me that the Tesla is doing 7 times better in energy !
I think this factor (7) is pretty much in line with the numbers that I expressed in a previous post !
08-06-2010, 01:36 AM
#53
Nordschleife Master
Well, let's quit "Theory" and let's try to compare the rides in a kind of practical manner, much more easier to understand :
(only keeping in mind one "reality" : one gallon of "premium" is about equal to 37kWh)
If we say that a Tesla, (that has a curb weight around 2750 lbs) would "do" about 200 miles with a 55kWh load, what's about saying that a 996 (my example..) that has a kind of similar curb weight, with 12 gallons, I'm good for about 220 miles.
So, these 12 gallons are equivalent to an energy of about 450 kWh, right ?
Then, between the two rides, (and the two "masses" to move) it become quite simple to compare the energy used: I "do" less than 0.5 miles per kWh, while the Tesla do 3.6 miles per kWh !
Ok, I agree, my old C4 is a little more heavier (probably 10%) than the Tesla, but altogether, it seems pretty clear to me that the Tesla is doing 7 times better in energy !
I think this factor (7) is pretty much in line with the numbers that I expressed in a previous post !
(only keeping in mind one "reality" : one gallon of "premium" is about equal to 37kWh)
If we say that a Tesla, (that has a curb weight around 2750 lbs) would "do" about 200 miles with a 55kWh load, what's about saying that a 996 (my example..) that has a kind of similar curb weight, with 12 gallons, I'm good for about 220 miles.
So, these 12 gallons are equivalent to an energy of about 450 kWh, right ?
Then, between the two rides, (and the two "masses" to move) it become quite simple to compare the energy used: I "do" less than 0.5 miles per kWh, while the Tesla do 3.6 miles per kWh !
Ok, I agree, my old C4 is a little more heavier (probably 10%) than the Tesla, but altogether, it seems pretty clear to me that the Tesla is doing 7 times better in energy !
I think this factor (7) is pretty much in line with the numbers that I expressed in a previous post !
A - Tesla operating cost
1 - Let's assume that the electrical kWh costs $0.20 (it can cost more).
2 - You say that a Tesla charge is 55kWh which will costs $11 and you say it delivers 200 miles. That's not the range others report, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.
3 - A Tesla battery costs $20k and lasts at most 100k miles, or $0.20/mile.
The Tesla operating cost (to run 200 miles) is $11 of electricity + $40 of battery for a total of $51.
B - Your 996 C4 operating cost
1 - You say your 996 C4 uses 12 gallons/220 miles (or 10.9 gallons/200 miles). Premium costs $3.40/gallon (price I paid today at Chevron) 10.9 gallons=$37.
Note: This value is pessimistic - my 997.2S PDK does at least 25MPG or 8 gallons/200miles - $27.
2 - The ICE uses oil. Let's assume an oil change every 6000 miles at $180/oil change ($0.03/mile) - $6/200 miles.
The 996 C4 operating cost (to run 200 miles) is $37 of gas + $6 of oil for a total of $43.
Tesla - $51
996 C4 - $43
My 997.2S - $33
It appears that the Tesla does not make financial sense.
08-06-2010, 02:43 AM
#54
Race Director
OK, I bite:
A - Tesla operating cost
1 - Let's assume that the electrical kWh costs $0.20 (it can cost more).
2 - You say that a Tesla charge is 55kWh which will costs $11 and you say it delivers 200 miles. That's not the range others report, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.
3 - A Tesla battery costs $20k and lasts at most 100k miles, or $0.20/mile.
The Tesla operating cost (to run 200 miles) is $11 of electricity + $40 of battery for a total of $51.
B - Your 996 C4 operating cost
1 - You say your 996 C4 uses 12 gallons/220 miles (or 10.9 gallons/200 miles). Premium costs $3.40/gallon (price I paid today at Chevron) 10.9 gallons=$37.
Note: This value is pessimistic - my 997.2S PDK does at least 25MPG or 8 gallons/200miles - $27.
2 - The ICE uses oil. Let's assume an oil change every 6000 miles at $180/oil change ($0.03/mile) - $6/200 miles.
The 996 C4 operating cost (to run 200 miles) is $37 of gas + $6 of oil for a total of $43.
Tesla - $51
996 C4 - $43
My 997.2S - $33
It appears that the Tesla does not make financial sense.
A - Tesla operating cost
1 - Let's assume that the electrical kWh costs $0.20 (it can cost more).
2 - You say that a Tesla charge is 55kWh which will costs $11 and you say it delivers 200 miles. That's not the range others report, but I give you the benefit of the doubt.
3 - A Tesla battery costs $20k and lasts at most 100k miles, or $0.20/mile.
The Tesla operating cost (to run 200 miles) is $11 of electricity + $40 of battery for a total of $51.
B - Your 996 C4 operating cost
1 - You say your 996 C4 uses 12 gallons/220 miles (or 10.9 gallons/200 miles). Premium costs $3.40/gallon (price I paid today at Chevron) 10.9 gallons=$37.
Note: This value is pessimistic - my 997.2S PDK does at least 25MPG or 8 gallons/200miles - $27.
2 - The ICE uses oil. Let's assume an oil change every 6000 miles at $180/oil change ($0.03/mile) - $6/200 miles.
The 996 C4 operating cost (to run 200 miles) is $37 of gas + $6 of oil for a total of $43.
Tesla - $51
996 C4 - $43
My 997.2S - $33
It appears that the Tesla does not make financial sense.
If you're going to factor in degradation and the ultimate replacement cost of a major component like the Tesla battery after 100K miles to your analysis, shouldn't you also include ICE specific consumables like air filters (every 40K), spark plugs (every 40K), drive belt (60K), PDK clutch oil change (60K), 12V battery replacement (probable a couple), etc. not to mention other major items that might fail? I don't think it's realistic to assume the only costs for running a Porsche ICE for 100K miles are gas and oil changes, and if you're going to front load the EV battery costs you need to do the same for the ICE costs. BTW, I wouldn't expect gas to stay at $3.40 over the life of a Tesla battery and battery replacement costs can only come down as technology improves. Lots of variables and just sayin'; apples to apples...
Last edited by Mike in CA; 08-06-2010 at 03:03 AM.
08-06-2010, 02:58 AM
#55
Nordschleife Master
Sorry, couldn't resist butting in. You're getting at least 25mpg with your 997.2S PDK? I can get that sometimes in all highway driving and a fairly light foot, but at least 25 in all driving? Adias, you need to wring that thing out a bit more often.
If you're going to factor in degradation and the ultimate replacement cost of a major component like the Tesla battery after 100K miles to your analysis, shouldn't you also include ICE specific consumables like air filters (every 40K), spark plugs (every 40K), drive belt (60K), PDK clutch oil change (60K), 12V battery replacement (probable a couple), etc. not to mention other major items that might fail? I don't think it's realistic to assume the only costs for running an ICE for 100K miles are gas and oil changes, and if you're going to front load the EV battery costs you need to do the same for the ICE costs. BTW, I wouldn't expect gas to stay at $3.40 over the life of a Tesla battery and battery replacement costs can only come down as technology improves. Lots of variables and just sayin'; apples to apples.......
If you're going to factor in degradation and the ultimate replacement cost of a major component like the Tesla battery after 100K miles to your analysis, shouldn't you also include ICE specific consumables like air filters (every 40K), spark plugs (every 40K), drive belt (60K), PDK clutch oil change (60K), 12V battery replacement (probable a couple), etc. not to mention other major items that might fail? I don't think it's realistic to assume the only costs for running an ICE for 100K miles are gas and oil changes, and if you're going to front load the EV battery costs you need to do the same for the ICE costs. BTW, I wouldn't expect gas to stay at $3.40 over the life of a Tesla battery and battery replacement costs can only come down as technology improves. Lots of variables and just sayin'; apples to apples.......
08-06-2010, 06:28 PM
#56
Just for information, if you are concerned that the battery replacement cost will not go down in the future, you can lock in a price now, in advance, for $10k (might be $12k). Also, the battery at 100,000 miles is not entirely depleted, but I don't recall what % remains.
Really?! Peer pressure? Please 
I'm a car guy. My friends are into cars, I go to the track, I help run a car show every month during the summer and I don't think there is a single friend or neighbor I have that is an environmentalist. Actually, most were not initially supportive of the acquisiton. They would have preferred that I had gone with the used Ferrari 360 or used Gallardo I was considering at the time. Peer pressure has nothing to do with any decisions. Hell, I'm considering buying a used 1988 fire truck at auction. What do you think the milage/carbon foot print on that thing will be?
Not sure what you mean by turf war. My Porsche and Tesla are parked next to each other my garage and haven't shanked each other yet.
By limitations, I'm assuming you mean the range, but in the 9 months I've had it, I have never had to alter my plans/switch cars due to range issues (and I do have to drive for work at times). I can attend multiple meetings all over the Chicago Metro area with no issues. Of course the Tesla is not practical for a long distance road trips, but I wouldn't take the car for this purpose even if it had unlimited range. I have larger more comfortable cars for that.
If by subsidized, you mean the tax credit, you can see my post above. All it does is allow me to keep a little more of my own money. If you disagree on how I'm characterizing this that is fine, please accept my thanks for your contribution to my car. I'm really enjoying it. Care to contribute to my next purchase?
I'm a car guy. My friends are into cars, I go to the track, I help run a car show every month during the summer and I don't think there is a single friend or neighbor I have that is an environmentalist. Actually, most were not initially supportive of the acquisiton. They would have preferred that I had gone with the used Ferrari 360 or used Gallardo I was considering at the time. Peer pressure has nothing to do with any decisions. Hell, I'm considering buying a used 1988 fire truck at auction. What do you think the milage/carbon foot print on that thing will be? Not sure what you mean by turf war. My Porsche and Tesla are parked next to each other my garage and haven't shanked each other yet.
By limitations, I'm assuming you mean the range, but in the 9 months I've had it, I have never had to alter my plans/switch cars due to range issues (and I do have to drive for work at times). I can attend multiple meetings all over the Chicago Metro area with no issues. Of course the Tesla is not practical for a long distance road trips, but I wouldn't take the car for this purpose even if it had unlimited range. I have larger more comfortable cars for that.
If by subsidized, you mean the tax credit, you can see my post above. All it does is allow me to keep a little more of my own money. If you disagree on how I'm characterizing this that is fine, please accept my thanks for your contribution to my car. I'm really enjoying it. Care to contribute to my next purchase?
08-06-2010, 11:39 PM
#57
Nordschleife Master
Just for information, if you are concerned that the battery replacement cost will not go down in the future, you can lock in a price now, in advance, for $10k (might be $12k). Also, the battery at 100,000 miles is not entirely depleted, but I don't recall what % remains.
Really?! Peer pressure? Please I'm a car guy. My friends are into cars, I go to the track, I help run a car show every month during the summer and I don't think there is a single friend or neighbor I have that is an environmentalist. Actually, most were not initially supportive of the acquisiton. They would have preferred that I had gone with the used Ferrari 360 or used Gallardo I was considering at the time. Peer pressure has nothing to do with any decisions. Hell, I'm considering buying a used 1988 fire truck at auction. What do you think the milage/carbon foot print on that thing will be?
Not sure what you mean by turf war. My Porsche and Tesla are parked next to each other my garage and haven't shanked each other yet.
By limitations, I'm assuming you mean the range, but in the 9 months I've had it, I have never had to alter my plans/switch cars due to range issues (and I do have to drive for work at times). I can attend multiple meetings all over the Chicago Metro area with no issues. Of course the Tesla is not practical for a long distance road trips, but I wouldn't take the car for this purpose even if it had unlimited range. I have larger more comfortable cars for that.
If by subsidized, you mean the tax credit, you can see my post above. All it does is allow me to keep a little more of my own money. If you disagree on how I'm characterizing this that is fine, please accept my thanks for your contribution to my car. I'm really enjoying it. Care to contribute to my next purchase?
Really?! Peer pressure? Please
I'm a car guy. My friends are into cars, I go to the track, I help run a car show every month during the summer and I don't think there is a single friend or neighbor I have that is an environmentalist. Actually, most were not initially supportive of the acquisiton. They would have preferred that I had gone with the used Ferrari 360 or used Gallardo I was considering at the time. Peer pressure has nothing to do with any decisions. Hell, I'm considering buying a used 1988 fire truck at auction. What do you think the milage/carbon foot print on that thing will be? Not sure what you mean by turf war. My Porsche and Tesla are parked next to each other my garage and haven't shanked each other yet.
By limitations, I'm assuming you mean the range, but in the 9 months I've had it, I have never had to alter my plans/switch cars due to range issues (and I do have to drive for work at times). I can attend multiple meetings all over the Chicago Metro area with no issues. Of course the Tesla is not practical for a long distance road trips, but I wouldn't take the car for this purpose even if it had unlimited range. I have larger more comfortable cars for that.
If by subsidized, you mean the tax credit, you can see my post above. All it does is allow me to keep a little more of my own money. If you disagree on how I'm characterizing this that is fine, please accept my thanks for your contribution to my car. I'm really enjoying it. Care to contribute to my next purchase?
Re tax credits. Yes the government allows you to keep some of your money, meaning others will pay that deficit for you. I would rather the government stop meddling in the market, reduce expenses and lower taxes for all of us.
08-07-2010, 01:03 AM
#58
Nordschleife Master
And the saga goes on... Tesla Loses More Money, ZEV Credit Revenue Stream.
"Earlier this week, Tesla reported a $38.5m Q2 net loss, up from its $29.5m in the first quarter of the year. The good news was that revenue rose by about $8m over Q1, to $28.45m, but development and selling/general expenses rose countering the higher receipts. Other good news came on the Model S front, as Tesla claims that body and powertrain development is complete for the forthcoming sedan. But with the company losing about $5 per share (currently valued at $19.70 each), there’s more bad news coming. In a piece at Wired Autopia, Tesla’s former PR boss Darryl Siry points out that a key revenue stream for Tesla is being closed."
"Earlier this week, Tesla reported a $38.5m Q2 net loss, up from its $29.5m in the first quarter of the year. The good news was that revenue rose by about $8m over Q1, to $28.45m, but development and selling/general expenses rose countering the higher receipts. Other good news came on the Model S front, as Tesla claims that body and powertrain development is complete for the forthcoming sedan. But with the company losing about $5 per share (currently valued at $19.70 each), there’s more bad news coming. In a piece at Wired Autopia, Tesla’s former PR boss Darryl Siry points out that a key revenue stream for Tesla is being closed."
08-07-2010, 03:17 AM
#59
ADias wrote :
..I'm not sure you did bite the right bone !
Bone A) The big costs that you mention, and priced quite high, i.e.: the battery.. you said that it will last 100 kmiles. Well, for the first 100k miles, may be it is good to remember that you got a battery inside the price of the car, and the next "battery" will for ..the next 100k ! or, paying an additional 20k ..for going to 200k miles.
I would say: good try, but, I think you should come back later with your "20k"
And, ..frankly; Do you realy keep your cars for more than 100k ??
Well, anyway, this was NOT the bone (..or half of it !!!) that I was looking at, who realy care about these costs, ..if you drive a P or a T ??
The expensive one are anyway NOT these, but simply in the depreciation of our cars.
The REAL problem is our planet, I hope we all agree on that, not speaking for us, but for our children and their children, right ?
(Note that on my previous post, I did not talked about cost, ..but about Energy.)
Imo, the REAL bone is:
Bone B) When we get a ride with our P, I still pretend that we loads 37kWh per gallon, ..and out of that, we use not more than 15% to move our car, ..and waste 85% to warm up the planet.
When Icruze loads 37kWh in his T, he use (at least..) 80% of it to move his car, and waste less than 20% ..to heat the planet.
(Note: I'm still personally convinced that this number is closer to 10%, but, anyway, this is not really relevant at this point !)
That's it, .. A very hard bone to bite, and I'm more than fully confident that the **real** values are worst than the above (for the ICE cars).
..And sorry, (another one..): If you really want to look "end-to-end", thinking about the efficiency of refineries, and moving gasoline and oil (..not in tiny electrical wires... but using ships and trucks!) and thinking about the costs of drilling, etc.., then: good bye !
..Particularly if the T owner did install 250sq ft of PV on his roof.
Since now more than 26 yrs (non stop) , I still drive my 911's on daily base, and love that, ..BUT: I do respect big time the T drivers.
OK, I bite:
Bone A) The big costs that you mention, and priced quite high, i.e.: the battery.. you said that it will last 100 kmiles. Well, for the first 100k miles, may be it is good to remember that you got a battery inside the price of the car, and the next "battery" will for ..the next 100k ! or, paying an additional 20k ..for going to 200k miles.
I would say: good try, but, I think you should come back later with your "20k"
And, ..frankly; Do you realy keep your cars for more than 100k ??
Well, anyway, this was NOT the bone (..or half of it !!!) that I was looking at, who realy care about these costs, ..if you drive a P or a T ??
The expensive one are anyway NOT these, but simply in the depreciation of our cars.
The REAL problem is our planet, I hope we all agree on that, not speaking for us, but for our children and their children, right ?
(Note that on my previous post, I did not talked about cost, ..but about Energy.)
Imo, the REAL bone is:
Bone B) When we get a ride with our P, I still pretend that we loads 37kWh per gallon, ..and out of that, we use not more than 15% to move our car, ..and waste 85% to warm up the planet.
When Icruze loads 37kWh in his T, he use (at least..) 80% of it to move his car, and waste less than 20% ..to heat the planet.
(Note: I'm still personally convinced that this number is closer to 10%, but, anyway, this is not really relevant at this point !)
That's it, .. A very hard bone to bite, and I'm more than fully confident that the **real** values are worst than the above (for the ICE cars).
..And sorry, (another one..): If you really want to look "end-to-end", thinking about the efficiency of refineries, and moving gasoline and oil (..not in tiny electrical wires... but using ships and trucks!) and thinking about the costs of drilling, etc.., then: good bye !
..Particularly if the T owner did install 250sq ft of PV on his roof.
Since now more than 26 yrs (non stop) , I still drive my 911's on daily base, and love that, ..BUT: I do respect big time the T drivers.
Last edited by GVA-SFO; 08-07-2010 at 03:37 AM.
08-07-2010, 03:37 AM
#60
Nordschleife Master
ADias wrote :
..I'm not sure you did bite the right bone !
Bone A) The big costs that you mention, and priced quite high, i.e.: the battery.. you said that it will last 100 kmiles. Well, for the first 100k miles, may be it is good to remember that you got a battery inside the price of the car, and the next "battery" will for ..the next 100k ! or, paying an additional 20k ..for going to 200k miles.
I would say: good try, but, I think you should come back later with your "20k"
And, ..frankly; Do you realy keep your cars for more than 100k ??
Well, anyway, this was NOT the bone (..or half of it !!!) that I was looking at, who realy care about these costs, ..if you drive a P or a T ??
The expensive one are anyway NOT these, but simply in the depreciation of our cars.
The REAL problem is our planet, I hope we all agree on that, not speaking for us, but for our children and their children, right ?
(Note that on my previous post, I did not talked about cost, ..but about Energy.)
Imo, the REAL bone is:
Bone B) When we get a ride with our P, I still pretend that we loads 37kWh per gallon, ..and out of that, we use not more than 15% to move our car, ..and waste 85% to warm up the planet.
When Icruze loads 37kWh in his T, he use (at least..) 80% of it to move his car, and waste less than 20% ..to heat the planet.
(Note: I'm still personally convinced that this number is closer to 10%, but, anyway, this is not really relevant at this point !)
That's it, .. A very hard bone to bite, and I'm more than fully confident that the **real** values are worst than the above.
..And sorry, (another one..): If you really want to look "end-to-end", thinking about the efficiency of refineries, and moving gasoline and oil (..not in tiny electrical wires... but using ships and trucks!) and thinking about the costs of drilling, etc.., then: good bye !
..Particularly if the T owner did install 250sq ft of PV on his roof.
I still drive my P and love it, ..but: I do respect big time the T drivers.
..I'm not sure you did bite the right bone !
Bone A) The big costs that you mention, and priced quite high, i.e.: the battery.. you said that it will last 100 kmiles. Well, for the first 100k miles, may be it is good to remember that you got a battery inside the price of the car, and the next "battery" will for ..the next 100k ! or, paying an additional 20k ..for going to 200k miles.
I would say: good try, but, I think you should come back later with your "20k"
And, ..frankly; Do you realy keep your cars for more than 100k ??
Well, anyway, this was NOT the bone (..or half of it !!!) that I was looking at, who realy care about these costs, ..if you drive a P or a T ??
The expensive one are anyway NOT these, but simply in the depreciation of our cars.
The REAL problem is our planet, I hope we all agree on that, not speaking for us, but for our children and their children, right ?
(Note that on my previous post, I did not talked about cost, ..but about Energy.)
Imo, the REAL bone is:
Bone B) When we get a ride with our P, I still pretend that we loads 37kWh per gallon, ..and out of that, we use not more than 15% to move our car, ..and waste 85% to warm up the planet.
When Icruze loads 37kWh in his T, he use (at least..) 80% of it to move his car, and waste less than 20% ..to heat the planet.
(Note: I'm still personally convinced that this number is closer to 10%, but, anyway, this is not really relevant at this point !)
That's it, .. A very hard bone to bite, and I'm more than fully confident that the **real** values are worst than the above.
..And sorry, (another one..): If you really want to look "end-to-end", thinking about the efficiency of refineries, and moving gasoline and oil (..not in tiny electrical wires... but using ships and trucks!) and thinking about the costs of drilling, etc.., then: good bye !
..Particularly if the T owner did install 250sq ft of PV on his roof.
I still drive my P and love it, ..but: I do respect big time the T drivers.
). Stop using AC in your house, ideally move to the pre-historic caves and be happy.