search the site
 daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Fun Forums > Space, Science & Technology

Space, Science & Technology shaping tomorrow's world



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old July 6th, 2017, 01:10 PM   #381
Swede
forumer #29
 
Swede's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: sol.III.eu.se.08
Posts: 4,136
Likes (Received): 1569

Quote:
Originally Posted by wjfox View Post
Elon Musk Just Revealed a Major Tesla Model 3 Event Coming Soon

By Mike Brown 9h ago

The wait is almost over. Tesla CEO Elon Musk revealed on his Twitter page Sunday evening that the Model 3 has passed all regulatory requirements “two weeks ahead of schedule,” and the first production car should arrive shortly. To celebrate, Musk has announced possibly the most hotly anticipated event in the Model 3’s journey: the launch party.

The Model 3 is an important moment for Tesla. The entry-level sedan will start at $35,000, far cheaper than the company’s current cheapest car, the $68,000 Model S. The release opens Tesla up to a far wider market, and demand is expected to be high for a vehicle made by a company that, until now, has only made electric vehicles priced at a premium.

https://www.inverse.com/article/3368...-model-3-event
Considering the Model S is already (or was?) the leading model in Norway, I wonder how common the Model 3 will do there.
__________________
Forumers met so far:
Huopa, Nightsky, Jo, wolkenkrabber, ThisSideofSteinway, jacksom, New Jack City, LeCom, Ellatur, Jan, Dennis, Ace, Bardamu, AtlanticaC5, Ringil, Dysfunctional, stacey, karakhal, ch1le, Hviid, staff, kjetilab, Þróndeimr, queetz, FREKI, sander, Blue Viking, nomels, Mantas, ristov, Rafal_T, khaan, Chilenofuturista, Jonte Myra, safta20, AW, Pas, Jarmo K, IceCheese, Sideshow_Bob, sk, Ingenioren, Ayreonaut, Silver Creations, Hasse78, Svartmetall
Swede no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 7th, 2017, 02:11 AM   #382
AnOldBlackMarble
read lightship chronicles
 
AnOldBlackMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,518
Likes (Received): 5117

Quote:
Originally Posted by womfalcs3 View Post
1.) There are studies that show the amount of CO2 produced in making the batteries that go into these cars offsets the CO2 saved by not burning gasoline. Popular Mechanics recently estimated 2.5 years required to offset the CO2 emissions of a gasoline-powered car: http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...udy-fake-news/. Of course, this value can go up or down, depending on the size of the EV and conventional vehicle being displaced, and the amount of driving.

2.) EVs today are impractical since they will rely mostly on fossil fuels indirectly (so they will contribute CO2 emissions themselves). You'll increase the load by charging your EV, which is likely being met by natural gas or coal. You also have the losses incurred in transmission and distribution to contend with.

Once/if your power generation is coming from renewables, then it may make sense (if you displace 2.5 years worth of driving to offset the CO2 produced from the battries' manufacture).
Another day another troll.

1. No such studies exists. The Tesla battery pack is made of several thousand AA rechargeable batteries. The amount of energy required to make a single AA battery is insignificant, and for over 1000 we're talking about burning a few dozen gallons of fuel, but those battery packs will last anywhere from 3 to 6 years. So for that time no fossil fuel energy is used, also breaking them down requires a small amount of energy. So over the lifetime of the pack it will use 10000/1 less energy compared to the length of service it provides.

2. If you convert the actual energy used by a Tesla into gasoline numbers it comes to over 150 miles per gallon, under the most inefficient scenario. So even if all the energy comes from a poorly run fossil fuel plant it is still 10 times more efficient, but if some of that power comes from more modern efficient carbon plants or better yet from renewables than the gap grows exponentially.

You creepy carbon fuel trolls can keep on lying, and lying, and lying, because no one is buying. The only one you are fooling is your own foolish self, since you actually believe you are fooling others with your lies.
__________________
Read my FREE science fiction adventure Lightship Chronicles.com

EduardSA liked this post
AnOldBlackMarble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 7th, 2017, 05:43 AM   #383
womfalcs3
Registered User
 
womfalcs3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Jeddah
Posts: 416
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble View Post
Another day another troll.

1. No such studies exists. The Tesla battery pack is made of several thousand AA rechargeable batteries. The amount of energy required to make a single AA battery is insignificant, and for over 1000 we're talking about burning a few dozen gallons of fuel, but those battery packs will last anywhere from 3 to 6 years. So for that time no fossil fuel energy is used, also breaking them down requires a small amount of energy. So over the lifetime of the pack it will use 10000/1 less energy compared to the length of service it provides.

2. If you convert the actual energy used by a Tesla into gasoline numbers it comes to over 150 miles per gallon, under the most inefficient scenario. So even if all the energy comes from a poorly run fossil fuel plant it is still 10 times more efficient, but if some of that power comes from more modern efficient carbon plants or better yet from renewables than the gap grows exponentially.

You creepy carbon fuel trolls can keep on lying, and lying, and lying, because no one is buying. The only one you are fooling is your own foolish self, since you actually believe you are fooling others with your lies.
It's unconstructive to be name-calling. The views I posted are the general consensus among energy economists.
womfalcs3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2017, 09:14 PM   #384
AnOldBlackMarble
read lightship chronicles
 
AnOldBlackMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,518
Likes (Received): 5117

Quote:
Originally Posted by womfalcs3 View Post
It's unconstructive to be name-calling.
If that's your name, by what other name can I "call" you? A troll is what a troll does. If you don't want to be called one, don't be one.

Quote:
The views I posted are the general consensus among energy economists.
BULLSHIT! That's the problem. People like you only spread bullshit, and then you get mad when you get called out on it.

Quote:
Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF

Fossil fuel companies are benefitting from global subsidies of $5.3tn (£3.4tn) a year, equivalent to $10m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

Nicholas Stern, an eminent climate economist at the London School of Economics, said: “This very important analysis shatters the myth that fossil fuels are cheap by showing just how huge their real costs are. There is no justification for these enormous subsidies for fossil fuels, which distort markets and damages economies, particularly in poorer countries.”

Lord Stern said that even the IMF’s vast subsidy figure was a significant underestimate: “A more complete estimate of the costs due to climate change would show the implicit subsidies for fossil fuels are much bigger even than this report suggests.”


And there is a lot more in the full story at The Guardian
So if you are going to equate renewable to fossil fuels while factoring in the costs of ore deposit extraction, processing, and than break down and clean up, then apply the same criteria to fossil fuel. NONE, that is NONE of "your energy economists" that you mentioned factored the equal cost, from raw ore to total consumption and cost of clean up. Oh wait, but Yes they did for renewable, but No, not for fossil fuel. So how about you add in the cost of land, geologic studies, the drilling, the transport, the refining, the wars as a result of people fighting for control of these fossil fuels, etc. Add ALL the costs, not just the cost "at the pump".

So you see why you are a troll?

Last edited by AnOldBlackMarble; July 8th, 2017 at 09:36 PM.
AnOldBlackMarble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 8th, 2017, 11:44 PM   #385
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 969
Likes (Received): 3249

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble View Post
So if you are going to equate renewable to fossil fuels while factoring in the costs of ore deposit extraction, processing, and than break down and clean up, then apply the same criteria to fossil fuel. NONE, that is NONE of "your energy economists" that you mentioned factored the equal cost, from raw ore to total consumption and cost of clean up. Oh wait, but Yes they did for renewable, but No, not for fossil fuel. So how about you add in the cost of land, geologic studies, the drilling, the transport, the refining, the wars as a result of people fighting for control of these fossil fuels, etc. Add ALL the costs, not just the cost "at the pump".
Uhh... what you are taking about is called a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA), and they are done for fossil fuels all the time:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...64032111001109
https://www.scientificbulletin.upb.r...a/full5321.pdf
http://biodiesel.org/reports/20000707_gen-280.pdf
https://www.google.com/search?q=Fossil+fuel+LCA
__________________
Poe's law: You can't impersonate stupidity without somebody mistaking it for the real thing.
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2017, 06:13 AM   #386
womfalcs3
Registered User
 
womfalcs3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Jeddah
Posts: 416
Likes (Received): 115

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble View Post
If that's your name, by what other name can I "call" you? A troll is what a troll does. If you don't want to be called one, don't be one.



BULLSHIT! That's the problem. People like you only spread bullshit, and then you get mad when you get called out on it.



So if you are going to equate renewable to fossil fuels while factoring in the costs of ore deposit extraction, processing, and than break down and clean up, then apply the same criteria to fossil fuel. NONE, that is NONE of "your energy economists" that you mentioned factored the equal cost, from raw ore to total consumption and cost of clean up. Oh wait, but Yes they did for renewable, but No, not for fossil fuel. So how about you add in the cost of land, geologic studies, the drilling, the transport, the refining, the wars as a result of people fighting for control of these fossil fuels, etc. Add ALL the costs, not just the cost "at the pump".

So you see why you are a troll?
I'm not talking about their costs. My post brought up whether EVs are really less polluting than gasoline-powered cars. You would have to displace 2.5 years worth of driving just to compensate for the CO2 produced while making the batteries. Then you have to contend with the fact your electricity is likely (in the current state) generated by coal or gas, which would have CO2 emissions to charge your EV.

Environmentally, it only makes sense to buy an EV if:
1.) you're going to drive more than 2.5 years worth of (average) distance, AND
2.) your electricity is generated from renewables. Not coal.

That's aside from local economic circumstances, which I can't generalize. Like where I am, for example, oil is subsidized, but so is electricity.

If you produce electricity on-site or take from the grid using renewables, then all you have to overcome is the 1st point, and it may make environmental sense to you then.

Last edited by womfalcs3; July 9th, 2017 at 06:23 AM.
womfalcs3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2017, 12:20 PM   #387
KOZIMIERZ
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 467
Likes (Received): 323

It also makes environmental sense because you take the pollution exhaust point from the place where millions live to paces outside the cities where there will be much less impact on health. And that is the most revolutionary environmental impact of electric cars. And remember CO2 is the smallest environmental hazard of all - SOx, NOX, CO, heavy metals, ozone, benzene/other toxic carbohydrates, formaldehyde and particulate matter are all much worse.

Remember also about reduction of noise pollution.
__________________
Pierwsze prawo Kozimierza: Prawdopodobieństwo zrealizowania projektu jest odwrotnie proporcjonalne do kwadratu liczby zaangażowanych jednostek budżetowych.
KOZIMIERZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 9th, 2017, 10:57 PM   #388
wjfox
Futurist
 
wjfox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: L O N D O N
Posts: 38,198
Likes (Received): 12175

First Production Model 3

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/883900030163324930


__________________
FutureTimeline.net...

Arnorian, EduardSA, Swede, Superunknown liked this post
wjfox está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2017, 12:39 AM   #389
AnOldBlackMarble
read lightship chronicles
 
AnOldBlackMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,518
Likes (Received): 5117

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyll.Ing. View Post
I haven't looked in detail into this but is the fact that most renewable technologies created today require the use of fossil fuel sources counted in or excluded when citing the total energy consumption in the cycle of renewables?

It should be excluded for an honest comparison. We need to know the actual costs of a pure fossil fuel cycle vs. a pure renewable cycle. I don't know of any renewable source today that does not have a fossil energy process somewhere in the cycle. Counting that as a "penalty" against renewables is dishonest, if it is being done this way, which I don't know if it is. But what I do know is that when most of these guys throw up charts and numbers in support of fossil fuels, they are never honest or accurate, EVER.
__________________
Read my FREE science fiction adventure Lightship Chronicles.com

Last edited by AnOldBlackMarble; July 13th, 2017 at 12:58 AM.
AnOldBlackMarble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2017, 12:56 AM   #390
AnOldBlackMarble
read lightship chronicles
 
AnOldBlackMarble's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,518
Likes (Received): 5117

Quote:
Originally Posted by womfalcs3 View Post

Environmentally, it only makes sense to buy an EV if:
1.) you're going to drive more than 2.5 years worth of (average) distance, AND
2.) your electricity is generated from renewables. Not coal.

That's aside from local economic circumstances, which I can't generalize. Like where I am, for example, oil is subsidized, but so is electricity.

If you produce electricity on-site or take from the grid using renewables, then all you have to overcome is the 1st point, and it may make environmental sense to you then.
Exactly, and that's the point. Now stretch that out so it is more honest.

1. Most cars have a lifespan of 10 - 15 years, so it does not matter how long I own it, but rather for how long the car functions. With an average of 7 years per battery pack that's two packs for an average life of a car. So that beats fossil fuels by a mile.

2. And of course we are not there yet, but even the biggest trees on earth start from a tiny seed. We've got to start somewhere. Of course the numbers won't work IMMEDIATELY right off the bat. That's why the measure has to be long term. 50 to 100 years. Accounting for all the cars today, and all that will exist over the next 100 years, if we do NOTHING to change energy sources and only use fossil fuel how much emissions will we produce by 2117? On the other hand if today we start, slowly, step by step, so that in 50 years we transition to an 80% to 90% renewable total cycle, what will the emissions be by 2117? Will they be the same or completely different? Clearly completely different. This is the point of environmentalism. Long term NOT what is happening in July 2017. But for us to get to 2117 we do have to plant the "seed" today.
__________________
Read my FREE science fiction adventure Lightship Chronicles.com

Last edited by AnOldBlackMarble; July 13th, 2017 at 01:01 AM.
AnOldBlackMarble no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 13th, 2017, 07:15 PM   #391
Kyll.Ing.
Registered User
 
Kyll.Ing.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Trondheim
Posts: 969
Likes (Received): 3249

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnOldBlackMarble View Post
I haven't looked in detail into this but is the fact that most renewable technologies created today require the use of fossil fuel sources counted in or excluded when citing the total energy consumption in the cycle of renewables?
They count the entire cycle. Everything. For example:
  • Creating a windmill requires, among other things,a certain number of kilograms of steel.
  • Creating a kilogram of steel requires, among other things, a certain fraction of the lifetime of a steel mill.
  • Creating a kilogram of plastic for the wiring of the fuse box in the lunch room of a steel mill requires, among other things, a certain number of kilograms of rubber.
  • Creating a kilogram of rubber requires, among other things, a certain number of kilojoules of energy.
  • Creating a kilojoule of energy requires, among other things, an output of energy from the electricity grid in the area in question.
  • A whole separate analysis is done for the electricity grid (usually calculated on a regional or continent-wide basis), finding the total emissions released per kilojoule of energy output.
Every step of the way hinges on massive databases of previous analyses. An analysis is ran for steel production. Another for a steel mill. Another for rubber. And, as mentioned, one for energy. A good LCA is very thorough, and just running inventories to identify the entire input/output chain of a process or a product is a discipline in itself. Every process to create an output has multiple inputs, every input is the output of another. And associated with the outputs are emissions, which again have impacts. The whole thing is recursive, for instance you will need some steel to make steel, so summing up the whole thing requires quite large matrix operations.



Getting a journalist to understand it all, though, that's where issues usually happen. And there could be some bugs in the calculation programs too, but those tend to be caught before anything is published. Then again, I did read a published analysis once where the author (or rather, the program used by the author) had estimated emissions of some 4,000 tons of Scandium per kilogram of produced polyethylene. The worldwide annual production of Scandium averages around ten tons in total. But usually, professionals tend know what they are doing, and the published figures tend to be as thorough as practically possible. As my LCA teacher said (paraphrased, since this was three years ago): "You can't analyze every step in the interlocking web of processes, and find every single emission. But you can do 97 %. You will miss 3 %, but there's little to be done about that. Half the art of LCA is making sure there's nothing important buried in those 3 %."
__________________
Poe's law: You can't impersonate stupidity without somebody mistaking it for the real thing.

AnOldBlackMarble, antoinetonee liked this post
Kyll.Ing. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2017, 10:44 AM   #392
lawdefender
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 510
Likes (Received): 891

https://evobsession.com/electric-car-sales/








__________________
cities visited by me: New York, London, Paris, Venice, Amsterdam, Munich, Zurich, Genève, Hong Kong, Singapore, Bangkok, Manila, Taipei, Sydney, Brisbane, Cape Town, Johannesburg, Durban,
lawdefender no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2017, 10:11 PM   #393
Ingenioren
Registered User
 
Ingenioren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Oslo
Posts: 5,554
Likes (Received): 538

I'm a little surpriced Kia Soul ranks lower than the competition, also that i3 get's such good sales.
__________________
I want to see some construction!
Ingenioren no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 19th, 2017, 02:13 AM   #394
goschio
proud Kuffar
 
goschio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Menschenarche
Posts: 5,977
Likes (Received): 3724

The electric revolution is full on now.
__________________
Isaiah 28:2
Behold, the Lord hath a mighty and strong one, which as a tempest of hail and a destroying storm, as a flood of mighty waters overflowing, shall cast down to the earth with the hand.

Matthew 7:25
And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.
goschio no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu