[carve29]

Originally Posted by Double Bubble

Isn't Tesla overrated?

How so? It's so rare when someone can truly innovate like Tesla has. Drive one. It's a pretty incredible car that has nothing like any car has ever had in terms of combination of power source, design, performance, range, etc. Find another market that is harder to crack than automotive manufacturing...maybe commercial airline production. And they did it. You have to hand it to them. The key to their longevity will be advancing battery technology to reduce cost and creating a mid-market sedan that is more affordable.

[Bimmeration]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

It's odd you recommend complete sentences to others, then fail to follow your own advice... But I digress.
Please tell us more about these countries that are so "smart" they generate their energy using only the weather and waterfalls. Please also provide these mythical place's GDP so we can see how productive they are using this method. Thanks.

there are countries that does this. just google and you'll find them. granted that not the entire 100% of the energy they use are domestically produced, rather imported.

[Bimmeration]

Originally Posted by Socom

I've heard this before and it's funny how tastes have changes because in the 90's and early 2000's one of the draws to BMW was the concept of "same sausage but different size".

IMO, both "sausages" are good. Just one is American and one is German, made with different ingredients.

[BMW269]

I just don't see what innovation has Tesla brought. That they started selling highly expensive so called luxury electric sedans highly subsidised? They even ripped off Maserati and Aston Martin design. Tesla is just as innovative as iPhone 6.

[F32Fleet]

Originally Posted by Levi

I just don't see what innovation has Tesla brought. That they started selling highly expensive so called luxury electric sedans highly subsidised? They even ripped off Maserati and Aston Martin design. Tesla is just as innovative as iPhone 6.

They received gov't loans like other start-ups at the time (ie. FISKER), and yes in the US at least the taxpayer shoulders some of the cost to subsidize the purchase via personal tax credits. The Nissan LEAF has tax credits as well. I know people who spend $0/mo on the LEAF due to incentives as well as state and federal tax credits.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by matbl

Smoke stacks? Smart countries produce their electricity in other ways...

In the USA, the majority of electricity is produced by coal and natural gas. Coal and natural gas are carbon-based fuels. Burning carbon-based fuels produces carbon-based exhaust by-products such as CO2. Producing electricity using carbon-based fuels moves the production of carbon-based exhaust by-products from the tail pipe of a car (EVs don't have an exhaust pipe) to the exhaust pipes of the coal and natural gas electrical generation plants; smoke stacks are slang for electrical generation plants exhaust pipes.

Generally cities do not have electrical generation plants in their city-centers where public transportation is operated (or EVs are driven). In other words, it is a false positive that EVs don't create air pollution; it is just created somewhere else.

Smart countries that aren't full of a bunch of liberals could safely produce electricity by nuclear power without any air pollution. But that's a different Forum...

Complete and clear sentences for you now?

[matbl]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

It's odd you recommend complete sentences to others, then fail to follow your own advice... But I digress.
Please tell us more about these countries that are so "smart" they generate their energy using only the weather and waterfalls. Please also provide these mythical place's GDP so we can see how productive they are using this method. Thanks.

I think you have to measure it by GDP per capita to be able to compare...
Norway is a perfect example of such a country. They more or less only have hydro power and a GDP per capita of ~$65000 (place 6 in the world) (2013 according to world bank numbers). US has ~$53000 (place 10).
Another example would be Sweden (where I live) which have more or less only hydro, nuclear and some wind (and some imported hydro power from norway). GDP per capita (2013) ~$43000 (place 14 in the world).

BTW. Norway also happens to have the most Teslas per capita...

[matbl]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

Smart countries that aren't full of a bunch of liberals could safely produce electricity by nuclear power without any air pollution. But that's a different Forum...

Like Norway, Sweden, Finland. Ohh... And by US standards we are pretty much all liberals...

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by matbl

I think you have to measure it by GDP per capita to be able to compare...
Norway is a perfect example of such a country. They more or less only have hydro power and a GDP per capita of ~$65000 (place 6 in the world) (2013 according to world bank numbers). US has ~$53000 (place 10).
Another example would be Sweden (where I live) which have more or less only hydro, nuclear and some wind (and some imported hydro power from norway). GDP per capita (2013) ~$43000 (place 14 in the world).

BTW. Norway also happens to have the most Teslas per capita...

Measuring GDP per capita deflects from the point I am making where energy is required for production and growth. Sure countries with GDP in the <$600,000,000,000 range like Sweden and Norway might be able to rely on the weather to generate much of their power, but we here in the USA we produce WAY more ($16,800,000,000,000 in 2013) than those countries. Solar panels and windmills just aren't close to being able to keep up with our productivity yet.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Levi

I just don't see what innovation has Tesla brought. That they started selling highly expensive so called luxury electric sedans highly subsidised? They even ripped off Maserati and Aston Martin design. Tesla is just as innovative as iPhone 6.

Please, name another manufacturer selling a full-EV in the same league and at the same volumes as Tesla. You can't, because there are none. Innovation doesn't always come in the form of some "new" thing. Sometimes innovation is in the execution. Telsa has put together a package that either A) no one else can, or B) everyone else is unwilling to even try.

I don't mean to be so breathless about the Model S. There are glaring shortcomings when compared to a petrol car. It's performance at speed is not as strong. It's range is far shorter. It takes an order of magnitude longer to "refuel" (3 minutes vs 30 minutes). But taken in the context of a full EV, it's the best anyone has delivered. The package is, as proven by the market, the best anyone has delivered so far.

That is innovation.

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

I've been making this same comment for several years now on this Forum, but it is deeper than that. The ideal driving environment for EV use is by the city dweller. The argument being the air pollution created for mobility is not at the exhaust pipe but rather the smoke stack far away from the confines of the city, which make EVs appear to be pollution-free and make city air more breathable is one reason, and the other is the limited range. Ironically however cities are where one finds a plethora of public transportation (subway, bus, taxi), and a far less need to drive anyway since most cities have local stores on each block. And cities are where it is most difficult to conveniently recharge an EV.

Reasoning in absolutes is a fallacious way of thinking. Consider two true/false questions:

Does an EV produce any emissions at all?

The answer to this question is irrelevant, because we have no mass-market alternatives that produce zero emissions.

Does an EV produce less emissions than a petrol car?

This question is harder to answer, because it depends upon how far back in the life-cycle of the vehicle you want to go. If we scope it to operational emissions (emissions occurring after manufacturing), EV's easily come out ahead. Even the dirtiest of current-generation power plants (i.e., "clean coal") produce a fraction of the emissions per kW when compared to the individual petrol engines in the hundreds of thousands of automobiles in operation.

There are efficiencies involved in mass-production of power that you simply cannot perform in a distributed system. This inequality only gets worse for the ICE as mass-production power facilities become more green.

The arguments over feasibility for city environments are perfectly valid, of course. However, these are matters of infrastructure. No one scratches their head over the fact that cities are dotted with petrol dispensing stations where we bury giant tanks of highly combustible liquid that is clumsily transferred to tanks which we literally sit on top of and drive around. Imagine a world where electric cars were the default. Charging stations would be as ubiquitous as parking meters in cities.

My point is that this is an infrastructure challenge. Yes, it is an impediment to ownership of an EV in the current circumstance, but I don't think that will be the case forever. Given the pace of development for autonomous vehicles, I don't think it will be an issue at all in 5-10 years. Your car will simply drop you off at the curb and drive to a parking garage where it attaches to a charging dock that requires zero human interaction. And that's in cases where you actually own the car. Why not just join your favorite ride-sharing co-op, where you pay a monthly transit fee for access to a fleet of cars that can show up at the curb within a couple of minutes, regardless of where you are.

I'm really charging ahead in to the future here, but my point is that expecting the ICE to be the solution that powers individual transit forever is in stark contrast to current trends.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by matbl

Like Norway, Sweden, Finland. Ohh... And by US standards we are pretty much all liberals...

But you're not American Liberals. A different breed....

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Reasoning in absolutes is a fallacious way of thinking. Consider two true/false questions:

Does an EV produce any emissions at all?

The answer to this question is irrelevant, because we have no mass-market alternatives that produce zero emissions.

Does an EV produce less emissions than a petrol car?

This question is harder to answer, because it depends upon how far back in the life-cycle of the vehicle you want to go. If we scope it to operational emissions (emissions occurring after manufacturing), EV's easily come out ahead. Even the dirtiest of current-generation power plants (i.e., "clean coal") produce a fraction of the emissions per kW when compared to the individual petrol engines in the hundreds of thousands of automobiles in operation.

There are efficiencies involved in mass-production of power that you simply cannot perform in a distributed system. This inequality only gets worse for the ICE as mass-production power facilities become more green.

The arguments over feasibility for city environments are perfectly valid, of course. However, these are matters of infrastructure. No one scratches their head over the fact that cities are dotted with petrol dispensing stations where we bury giant tanks of highly combustible liquid that is clumsily transferred to tanks which we literally sit on top of and drive around. Imagine a world where electric cars were the default. Charging stations would be as ubiquitous as parking meters in cities.

My point is that this is an infrastructure challenge. Yes, it is an impediment to ownership of an EV in the current circumstance, but I don't think that will be the case forever. Given the pace of development for autonomous vehicles, I don't think it will be an issue at all in 5-10 years. Your car will simply drop you off at the curb and drive to a parking garage where it attaches to a charging dock that requires zero human interaction. And that's in cases where you actually own the car. Why not just join your favorite ride-sharing co-op, where you pay a monthly transit fee for access to a fleet of cars that can show up at the curb within a couple of minutes, regardless of where you are.

I'm really charging ahead in to the future here, but my point is that expecting the ICE to be the solution that powers individual transit forever is in stark contrast to current trends.

Aside from the other environmental impacts EVS have that you left out, I've not done the math to validate a statement that post-production emissions is vastly cleaner than gasoline vehicle emissions, so I'll not argue the point until I do the math, but on the surface it's seems plausible. But the point is EVs still pollute and most people think they don’t because there are no tailpipe emissions. Until the battery breakthrough happens where the energy density and costs get somewhere near half that of carbon fuel I think adoption of EVs will still be slow. Also, it’s fine to consider a change in the infrastructure from carbon to electricity but until there is battery technology that allows for rapid recharge coupled with battery longevity, adoption of EVs will be slow.

Nice to think of autonomous vehicles that are your personal taxi, and that may someday work well in cities and suburbs at low speed in controlled drivespace, but I’ll put forth that people with a different drivespace environment will not trust single-vehicle autonomous travel; besides the fact it will kill the automotive manufacturing industry. I say we cut-to-the-chase and just let the Government be responsible for our personal travel, that’ll do wonders for our personal liberty...

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Please, name another manufacturer selling a full-EV in the same league and at the same volumes as Tesla. You can't, because there are none. Innovation doesn't always come in the form of some "new" thing. Sometimes innovation is in the execution. Telsa has put together a package that either A) no one else can, or B) everyone else is unwilling to even try.

I don't mean to be so breathless about the Model S. There are glaring shortcomings when compared to a petrol car. It's performance at speed is not as strong. It's range is far shorter. It takes an order of magnitude longer to "refuel" (3 minutes vs 30 minutes). But taken in the context of a full EV, it's the best anyone has delivered. The package is, as proven by the market, the best anyone has delivered so far.

That is innovation.

What car of the same size as a Tesla S takes 30 minutes to re-fuel? I can refuel my E90 in about 5 minutes;taking my time at it. Even Elon doesn't round up gasoline re-fueling to 30 minutes. LOL

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Measuring GDP per capita deflects from the point I am making where energy is required for production and growth. Sure countries with GDP in the <$600,000,000,000 range like Sweden and Norway might be able to rely on the weather to generate much of their power, but we here in the USA we produce WAY more ($16,800,000,000,000 in 2013) than those countries. Solar panels and windmills just aren't close to being able to keep up with our productivity yet.

But the Obama Administartion is trying to reduce that number. It's quite transparent...

[bradleyland]

Originally Posted by Efthreeoh

What car of the same size as a Tesla S takes 30 minutes to re-fuel? I can refuel my E90 in about 5 minutes;taking my time at it. Even Elon doesn't round up gasoline re-fueling to 30 minutes. LOL

Your statement doesn't refute any of my points, nor does it support the OP's premise. I don't bite on strawman arguments. My rebuttal was to the claim that Telsa hasn't innovated. That's clearly false.

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Your statement doesn't refute any of my points, nor does it support the OP's premise. I don't bite on strawman arguments. My rebuttal was to the claim that Telsa hasn't innovated. That's clearly false.

No, really, what car takes 30 minutes to refuel? It does refute your argument, because a Tesla takes at best 45 minutes to get 70 - 80 capacity back (about 200 miles) at one of its super-charger stations, if the Tesla is properly equipped, assuming there is an available charging port open. A 400-mile capable petrol car takes 5 minutes to recharge. It is a very large differential. Yup Tesla is innovative, but only compared to other electric vehicles, not compared to petrol vehicles, which is the OPs point.

[matbl]

Originally Posted by glennQNYC

Measuring GDP per capita deflects from the point I am making where energy is required for production and growth. Sure countries with GDP in the <$600,000,000,000 range like Sweden and Norway might be able to rely on the weather to generate much of their power, but we here in the USA we produce WAY more ($16,800,000,000,000 in 2013) than those countries. Solar panels and windmills just aren't close to being able to keep up with our productivity yet.

Ehm. The US is multiple times as large and has a lot bigger population. It may have something to do with the GDP...
If you are to compare countries of different size, gdp per capita is the way to go. If you can't understand why, there's really no point in discussing...

As a side note, since the US is so large compared to the mentioned countries, it of course would be able to use hydro, nuclear, wind and solar for its power.

[Dog Face Pony Soldier]

Originally Posted by matbl

Ehm. The US is multiple times as large and has a lot bigger population. It may have something to do with the GDP...
If you are to compare countries of different size, gdp per capita is the way to go. If you can't understand why, there's really no point in discussing...

As a side note, since the US is so large compared to the mentioned countries, it of course would be able to use hydro, nuclear, wind and solar for its power.

The point you are missing is the size of our economy is what makes windmills and solar panels incompatible with our desired level of growth right now. It would simply take too many windmills and solar panels to fuel our economy. Now if we were satisfied with negative growth (like some environmental activists desire), we might be able to use only the weather to provide energy.

[BMW269]

Originally Posted by bradleyland

Please, name another manufacturer selling a full-EV in the same league and at the same volumes as Tesla. You can't, because there are none. Innovation doesn't always come in the form of some "new" thing. Sometimes innovation is in the execution. Telsa has put together a package that either A) no one else can, or B) everyone else is unwilling to even try.

I don't mean to be so breathless about the Model S. There are glaring shortcomings when compared to a petrol car. It's performance at speed is not as strong. It's range is far shorter. It takes an order of magnitude longer to "refuel" (3 minutes vs 30 minutes). But taken in the context of a full EV, it's the best anyone has delivered. The package is, as proven by the market, the best anyone has delivered so far.

That is innovation.

Renault-Nissan

http://ecomento.com/2014/05/27/top-5...ars-in-the-us/

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014...vehicle/54170/

What do you mean by "League"? Sure nobody sells any large expensive electric sedan. It is also is not the point, as it is a niche, if EV is the future also less riche should be able to drive EV. Lexus has a faster and better car than BMW, but what is the point if most can't afford it, unlike M4?

[asus389]

Germany hit 75% renewable electricity production this year... 4th largest nominal GDP in the world.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/15/...er-use-sunday/

Also, as much as I love driving, I think many people in large cities who own cars may be better served using transit, taxis, ride sharing (uber, lyft, etc), short term rental (zipcar) – which could also be electric. So the question isn't really "street parking" vs electric cars. Its not needing a car vs electric cars.

For those people who live in houses and have their own garage, charge time is largely irrelevant past a certain point. You plug it in at night and in the AM its full. Arguably more convenient than going to a gas station, even if the gas station fill takes less time.

Plus, pretty much every garage at an office, apartment, or municipality *could* install fast chargers. Many of them have, actually.

Even so, the use case for electric cars won't make sense for everyone. But, you don't have to meet the needs of 100% of the market right out of the gate to have a successful business. Heck, look at Apple, they have sub 50% market share in all of their product lines and they are a 700Bn company.

[AndreyATC]

Originally Posted by Levi

Renault-Nissan

http://ecomento.com/2014/05/27/top-5...ars-in-the-us/

http://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/2014...vehicle/54170/

What do you mean by "League"? Sure nobody sells any large expensive electric sedan. It is also is not the point, as it is a niche, if EV is the future also less riche should be able to drive EV. Lexus has a faster and better car than BMW, but what is the point if most can't afford it, unlike M4?

Niche?
Is 5-er, A6, or E550 a niche?
Tesla will haul 5 adults and 2 kids with their luggage (3 adults and 3 kids in my case)
It can do cross-country spending $0 on gas
Yes you wait 30-40min while it's charging, but guess what?
By the time you get to your next charger, you'll need to either use bathroom or eat. 300mile ~ 4-5 hrs driving
Now, when you have a few kids, you're not waiting for your car to charge
Car is fully charged waiting for you to comeback from lunch, etc