Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Demise of the battery car and Tesla

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
    No sane person drives 179 mile per day to get to work. How much time and money (life) are they wasting on the road? Move!!!!!!!!!
    The 1% who can afford it, fly home in a helicopter. There are quite a few well paying jobs here in Silicon Valley that makes the long commute worthwhile. Another option is rent commuter rooms just to sleep Mon thru Thur, then make the drive home on weekends.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

      I think it's a fail all around. You can't get around the chemistry of batteries. That means long charging times and lots of mass for relatively little power. That's just how batteries work. The charging stations are a fail too. They are new and completely different infrastructure than the majority of vehicles use. That means you have to have something like handicap parking for electric vehicles. They don't fit in with the other 98% of vehicles when it comes to refueling. They require special needs.

      Now, hydrogen makes sense. It can be stored much like gasoline or other fuels. It can be pumped into a car in the same way as gasoline. That means all you need for infrastructure is to add hydrogen to diesel, gasoline, ethanol, or other portable fuels at existing fueling (gas) stations. This isn't some massive shift in infrastructure like charging stations are. It fits within the existing paradigm.
      Additionally, hydrogen refuels much like gasoline. You fill your tank in a few minutes and get another 350 to 400 miles of driving range. The hydrogen can be moved by tank truck to remote locations. A charging station might well require an expensive upgrade to existing power lines in such cases and would still be used by only a small fraction of vehicles.

      Then there's the worst of it. In 5 or so years, the battery in that car is going to need replacing. That costs upwards of $10,000 + meaning there's really little resale value to battery cars because of that cost. Battery cars just don't work.
      Agree with you about batteries: excepting some kind of revolutionary storage device, electric batteries are far too limited for widespread use, and will remain so for the foreseeable future. I saw one guy on TV some years back compare a laptop battery to a coffee thermos. He explained that both can store the same amount of energy, only the coffee thermos does it at one-tenth the price. There's just no way of getting around that kind of efficiency, and for consumers, the price-point is self-explanatory.

      Gotta disagree with you about hydrogen. Yes, hydrogen is a great energy source, and compares favorably with gasoline. the downside is the current methods for producing commercial quantities.

      There are four main sources for the commercial production of hydrogen: natural gas, oil, coal, and electrolysis; which account for 48%, 30%, 18% and 4% of the world’s hydrogen production respectively.[5] Fossil fuels are the dominant source of industrial hydrogen.[6] Carbon dioxide can be separated from natural gas with a 60-70% efficiency for hydrogen production and from other hydrocarbons to varying degrees of efficiency.[7]Specifically, bulk hydrogen is usually produced by the steam reforming of methane or natural gas.[8] The production of hydrogen from natural gas is the cheapest source of hydrogen currently. This process consists of heating the gas to between 700-1100°C in the presence of steam and a nickel catalyst. The resulting endothermic reaction breaks up the methane molecules and forms carbon monoxide CO and hydrogen H2. The carbon monoxide gas can then be passed with steam over iron oxide or other oxides and undergo a water gas shift reaction to obtain further quantities of H2. The downside to this process is that its major byproducts are CO, CO2 and other greenhouse gases.[5] Depending on the quality of the feedstock (natural gas, rich gases, naphtha, etc.), one ton of hydrogen produced will also produce 9 to 12 tons of CO2

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_production
      I'd add to that the poor net energy of commercial hydrogen, and I suspect that hydrogen will not prove commercially viable. It's a shame, too, 'cause I do believe that hydrogen presents a lot of pluses, and GM's SURUS floorpan prototype struck me as particularly innovative -- but after over $1 billion in R&D, to date the only buyer of any note seems to be the US Army, and their status remains potential only, not actual.

      https://www.triplepundit.com/2017/10...-help-us-army/

      I hope that I'm wrong, but the production of mass quantities of CO and CO2, the growing resistance to natural gas extraction -- both reasonable and unreasonable -- and the low net energy production holds severely against hydrogen ever becoming a mass market energy source.
      I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
        No sane person drives 179 mile per day to get to work. How much time and money (life) are they wasting on the road? Move!!!!!!!!!
        Have me a cousin who some years ago drove 90 miles one way to work every day. He may not be sane, but he did drive 180 mi daily . . . . He did that for a few years, but now he's working elsewhere, so his drive is down to more manageable distances.

        His wife drives even more: she's an inspector for the NYS Dept of Corrections. She inspects prisons all up and down the state, from Rikers Island to Dannemora on the Canadian border, from Attica to Riverhead. Suffice to say, she cranks out all kinds of miles.
        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

        Comment


        • #49
          Mark I drove one hour, one way to work and then back. Two hours x five is how much???? Smart boy 10 hours...great! One work day worth of time per week lost driving to and from work. Move stupid!!! Great idea. Fifteen minutes with the car 12 with the scooter 10 with the mc 33 with the bike and 2:40 per foot (only once)

          Your wife wasn't driving to work, driving was part of he work, just like a truck driver.
          "Ask not what your country can do for you"

          Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

          you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
            Mark I drove one hour, one way to work and then back. Two hours x five is how much???? Smart boy 10 hours...great! One work day worth of time per week lost driving to and from work. Move stupid!!! Great idea. Fifteen minutes with the car 12 with the scooter 10 with the mc 33 with the bike and 2:40 per foot (only once)
            Those are my cousins. They're like you: scared of New York City. Combine that with their fetish for animals, and they live out in the middle of nowhere. So he would drive ungodly distances daily, and she drove all over the state. For such neurotics, there's no choice: Jerkwater USA doesn't provide much in the way of economic opportunity.

            My in-laws are worse: after every trip into The City, they shower themselves Silkwood style. They're afraid that the melanin will rub off. They took their boy to Yankee Stadium earlier this summer -- on the Subway -- and now they've got him all freaked out too.

            Me? I live where the schools are, where the culture is, where the money is. Weather and time permitting I can walk to work in about 70 or 80 min. And I can count on one hand with fingers left over the number of times I drive to the office.

            Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
            Your wife wasn't driving to work, driving was part of he work, just like a truck driver.
            No, no, no. That's my cousin's wife. She's the Corrections Dept honcho. My wife doesn't drive. She's that rarest of creatures: a NJ native to whom the State of New Jersey denied a driver's license. Almost as rare as a disbarred attorney. That might sound inconvenient, but trust me: it saves countless lives. Were it that the State of NJ denied more and more of their natives driving privileges.
            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

              Were it that the State of NJ denied more and more of their natives driving privileges.
              That would be nice..........instead it only gets worse.
              ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

              BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

              BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Gixxer86g View Post

                That would be nice..........instead it only gets worse.
                Is there something in the water that makes Jersyites irresponsible drivers?
                I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                Comment


                • #53
                  TAG, you'll like this one; Tesla's suing the Province of Ontario:

                  The Canadian arm of Tesla, Inc., is taking the Ontario government to court, claiming it has been treated unfairly in the cancellation of a program providing rebates to residents who bought electric vehicles.

                  In an application for judicial review, Tesla Motors Canada says the decision by Premier Doug Ford’s government to halt the program in July left hundreds of its customers no longer eligible for rebates they expected to get when they ordered their vehicles.

                  It claims that Tesla was left out of a program that allows purchasers of other brands to still get rebates during a transition period...

                  ... Tesla sells vehicles directly to customers rather than through a dealership, making its vehicles ineligible for the incentives under the new rules

                  https://www.autoserviceworld.com/tes...hicle-rebates/
                  Yes, Doug Ford, brother of "Populist pre-Trump" Toronto Mayor Rob Ford (now deceased), is Premier of Ontario, having won a majority Progressive Conservative government, and it's slash and burn time in the "Yours to Discover" homeland!

                  "I am Groot"
                  - Groot

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    The car show Everyday Driver put the Tesla Model S head-to-head against the Chevrolet Volt. Long story short: in terms of value, the Volt won, hands down. The extra $20,000 worth of bells, whistles, and politically correct cachet that differentiates the Tesla from the Volt simply aren't worth it. As an everyday, drive around town kind of car, the Volt performs quite satisfactorily.

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NczZmNep5HI
                    I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      On hydrogen: If "Green" and zero-pollution from a vehicle is to be the end game then hydrogen makes sense. Yes, the biggest issue right now is storage, but I have little doubt that can be overcome at some point. What is needed is a cheap way to crack the hydrogen from other molecules. That would be using nuclear power to provide cheap electricity. That's a long term solution.

                      But, there's no room for useless solutions to pollution like battery cars.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                        On hydrogen: If "Green" and zero-pollution from a vehicle is to be the end game then hydrogen makes sense. Yes, the biggest issue right now is storage, but I have little doubt that can be overcome at some point. What is needed is a cheap way to crack the hydrogen from other molecules. That would be using nuclear power to provide cheap electricity. That's a long term solution.

                        But, there's no room for useless solutions to pollution like battery cars.
                        Nuclear fission? That's even worse than batteries, both environmentally and economically -- and batteries are horrible. Not only is there the problem of the spent fuel, but there's the little problem that nuclear power can't be economically viable without Federal subsidies. Talk about lose-lose.

                        Hydrolysis has long intrigued me (our late friend Allsirgarnet, too) but the trick was starting a reaction that could sustain itself for high net energy return, but still remain safe and controllable. That conservation of energy law is a surprisingly stubborn b*tch to overcome.

                        And that's why fossil fuels remain attractive: the sun's energy was harvested millenia ago. Those now extinct plants already did all the work. All we have to do is find where they're hiding in the ground and bring 'em up. Any new energy technology will have to at least equal fossils' net energy. If not, then the economics will render them losers. There's just no getting around it.
                        I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                          Nuclear fission? That's even worse than batteries, both environmentally and economically -- and batteries are horrible. Not only is there the problem of the spent fuel, but there's the little problem that nuclear power can't be economically viable without Federal subsidies. Talk about lose-lose.
                          The only thing nuclear plants require is federally backed insurance against the project's completion. Once in service, nuclear plants make bank. Palo Verde nuclear here in Arizona is the state's number one utility for power production and it's also the nation's largest power producer. It runs without federal subsidy.
                          The waste is easily handled by storage in facilities like Yucca Mountain. The only thing keeping that on hold is hysteria from the anti-nuclear crowd. It was scientific illiterates like pols in the Obama administration that kept that from happening... idiots...

                          Hydrolysis has long intrigued me (our late friend Allsirgarnet, too) but the trick was starting a reaction that could sustain itself for high net energy return, but still remain safe and controllable. That conservation of energy law is a surprisingly stubborn b*tch to overcome.
                          Cracking methane is easier than water. You get lamp black (carbon) an industrially useful by product and twice the hydrogen per molecule over water. It also requires less energy.

                          And that's why fossil fuels remain attractive: the sun's energy was harvested millenia ago. Those now extinct plants already did all the work. All we have to do is find where they're hiding in the ground and bring 'em up. Any new energy technology will have to at least equal fossils' net energy. If not, then the economics will render them losers. There's just no getting around it.
                          I don't disagree. Natural gas is replacing coal as a fuel for generating electricity. But, long term, we really need to go to nuclear be it fission or fusion. For what Obama squandered on his "stimulus" that didn't we could have built 50 new nuclear plants and had them on line by now eliminating coal as a fuel for electrical production entirely. No need for solar or wind either. No Ivanpah "bird cookers" or bat decimating wind farms. Coal miners could be turned to mining uranium and thorium instead.

                          We could export our coal to countries still using it... Like Germany where they killed off their nuclear plants only to find they needed more reliable plants to make electricity so they are building 25 new "clean" coal ones instead... Now their coal usage is the highest its been in decades...



                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            The only thing nuclear plants require is federally backed insurance against the project's completion. Once in service, nuclear plants make bank. Palo Verde nuclear here in Arizona is the state's number one utility for power production and it's also the nation's largest power producer. It runs without federal subsidy.
                            Are you sure?

                            Even the water used to cool Palo Verde came at a discounted rate. Needing a prevalent source of coolant to maintain a stable nuclear reaction, the plant owners purchased the effluent from the 91st Ave wastewater treatment plant owned by the cities of Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, Glendale, Tempe, and the town of Youngtown. The effluent was purchased at a 40% discount from water otherwise available from the CAP, with no inflation escalator to account for the length of the deal. The price has since been renegotiated to better account for the value Palo Verde has received, but from 1973 until 2009 our nuclear power generation was being significantly subsidized by the collection of cities who own the 91st Ave wastewater treatment plant. The exact amount of water used isn’t quantified in the study, but assuming the plant operated at maximum capacity, it received a subsidy of $1.5 million annually through 2005.

                            http://azcommunitypress.org/2013/10/...energy-future/
                            That's local, but the point remains: take away subsidies and nuclear fission has never been economically self sustaining. Even something as tangential cooling water has been subsidized.

                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            The waste is easily handled by storage in facilities like Yucca Mountain. The only thing keeping that on hold is hysteria from the anti-nuclear crowd. It was scientific illiterates like pols in the Obama administration that kept that from happening... idiots...
                            I'm no "green" fan, but on this one they're right. I mean, are you volunteering your street to be a thoroughfare for spent fissile material?

                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            Cracking methane is easier than water. You get lamp black (carbon) an industrially useful by product and twice the hydrogen per molecule over water. It also requires less energy.
                            Better net energy from methane, but too much CO and CO2. Like it or not -- "greentards" or not -- carbon regulation is here, and it's here to stay, at least in some form or another. I don't see how extracting H2 from methane is any more "carbon compliant" than straight burning fossil fuels as we do now.

                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            I don't disagree. Natural gas is replacing coal as a fuel for generating electricity. But, long term, we really need to go to nuclear be it fission or fusion.
                            DARPA's poured I don't know how much into it over the last ten years or so, but they've been working on fusion for a while, and to date, they've achieved nothing. Unless you can replicate the sun's gravitational and magnetic fields here on earth, fusion will remain a nonstarter.

                            https://www.wired.com/2009/07/darpas...usion-reactor/

                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            For what Obama squandered on his "stimulus" that didn't we could have built 50 new nuclear plants and had them on line by now eliminating coal as a fuel for electrical production entirely.
                            Fukishima anyone?

                            Just 'cause you came out of Rickover's Navy doesn't mean that the myriad of civilian reactor operators out there are living up to your standards. I wish that it was different, but it's not.

                            Just out of curiosity, what does the USN do with her spent fuel, have it reprocessed into DU?

                            By the way, that DU sh*t is nasty. Just down the road from KAPL was where they machined the stuff: The whole workforce either died of cancer -- or went nuts and killed their families, of this I sh*t you not.

                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            No need for solar or wind either. No Ivanpah "bird cookers" or bat decimating wind farms. Coal miners could be turned to mining uranium and thorium instead.
                            See above. They'd end up like the guys from National Lead.

                            https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...18/usa.nuclear

                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                            We could export our coal to countries still using it... Like Germany where they killed off their nuclear plants only to find they needed more reliable plants to make electricity so they are building 25 new "clean" coal ones instead... Now their coal usage is the highest its been in decades...
                            When their lake water starts burning their eyes they'll be b*tching about that too. Too bad fracking's getting such a bad rap. If done right, it's safe as houses. Now there's something government can do: regulate fracking properly. Why can't they do that?
                            I was married for two ******* years! Hell would be like Club Med! - Sam Kinison

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                              Are you sure?
                              Yes.



                              That's local, but the point remains: take away subsidies and nuclear fission has never been economically self sustaining. Even something as tangential cooling water has been subsidized.
                              SRP and CAP (the water people) would otherwise either pump that effluent into the ground or put it in large shallow ponds for groundwater recharge. By selling it, even at a discount, to Palo Verde they are making money off it and most of it ends up as evaporate into the atmosphere

                              I'm no "green" fan, but on this one they're right. I mean, are you volunteering your street to be a thoroughfare for spent fissile material?
                              Yep! I'd rent my pool out to store it if I could. Nothing really bad in that. First, the shipping containers are OMG indestructible. Second, the material is all alpha and beta emitters at low levels of radiation. You have to eat or breathe it in for it to harm you.
                              This is what they do for the shipping containers to make sure they're safe





                              They've tested and tested these containers for years. They're as safe as they can humanly be made. An accident that somehow does release some radioactive material can be cleaned up, just like an oil spill or any other industrial accident. It is the hysteria, lack of knowledge, and even false propaganda put out by those opposed to nuclear power that has kept it from being accepted.

                              Better net energy from methane, but too much CO and CO2. Like it or not -- "greentards" or not -- carbon regulation is here, and it's here to stay, at least in some form or another. I don't see how extracting H2 from methane is any more "carbon compliant" than straight burning fossil fuels as we do now.
                              Because there is no release of CO2 or CO in the process. Lamp black is a solid (think ground up charcoal).

                              DARPA's poured I don't know how much into it over the last ten years or so, but they've been working on fusion for a while, and to date, they've achieved nothing. Unless you can replicate the sun's gravitational and magnetic fields here on earth, fusion will remain a nonstarter.

                              https://www.wired.com/2009/07/darpas...usion-reactor/
                              These guys say they're close:




                              Fukishima anyone?
                              Fukushima was a natural disaster. Even so, nobody died in that accident from exposure, and the number of people that got exposed to really unsafe levels of radiation is countable on your fingers. Yes, it's a mess. Yes, there's a big clean up going. But, it's really no worse than something like that BP oil rig disaster in the Caribbean.
                              The worst accident was Chernobyl. That shows you what unaccountable government with lots of secrecy, graft, and corner cutting gets you. I'd be with you if the government was the one building and running nuclear power plants in a country that allowed that government absolute power.

                              Just 'cause you came out of Rickover's Navy doesn't mean that the myriad of civilian reactor operators out there are living up to your standards. I wish that it was different, but it's not.
                              Most civilian operators in the US are ex-Navy guys. Why train your own when you can get trained ones from the USN?

                              Just out of curiosity, what does the USN do with her spent fuel, have it reprocessed into DU?
                              As far as I know it's reprocessed into new fuel, either civilian or military. There's reasons for that but I can't get into it without talking about stuff I know is classified.

                              By the way, that DU sh*t is nasty. Just down the road from KAPL was where they machined the stuff: The whole workforce either died of cancer -- or went nuts and killed their families, of this I sh*t you not.
                              Nah, it really isn't. DU is an alpha emitter. That means you have to snort it or eat it to have it hurt you. Much of what you hear about DU is hysteria by the anti-nuke crowd. DU is a metal. Most of it even when spent in combat ends up as chunks of metal. I'd put it on a level maybe equal to having a basement with radon gas in it at most. Radon is another alpha emitter but as a gas you breathe it in so it can nail you in the long run. Uranium is a solid metal so even as dust it's just a lot harder to get it inside you to do harm.

                              See above. They'd end up like the guys from National Lead.

                              https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...18/usa.nuclear

                              When their lake water starts burning their eyes they'll be b*tching about that too. Too bad fracking's getting such a bad rap. If done right, it's safe as houses. Now there's something government can do: regulate fracking properly. Why can't they do that?
                              Almost all heavier metals are poisonous to one extent or another so... Fracking is a good thing. More nuclear power would be too.

                              Palo Verde Nuclear covers 4,000 acres. It produces just shy of 4,000 MW or, about a MW an acre for its size. Ivanpah Solar (the world's largest solar plant) also sits on about 4,000 acres of land. It produces about 400 MW (planned capacity) of power or a tenth of what Palo Verde does when it operates at full capacity, which is very rarely achieved.

                              In 2016 dollars, Ivanpah cost about $2.5 billion while Palo Verde ran about $11.5 billion. That means even in terms of cost Palo Verde ran half the cost per MW capacity Ivanpah did. So, not only is the solar plant more expensive to build, it is horribly inefficient compared to nuclear.

                              I for one don't want most of the US desert southwest paved over in solar panels because some Leftist environmentalist lunatics think it'd be a good idea. Ivanpah proves... PROVES... how environmentally unfriendly large commercial solar arrays are on a daily basis. It required the removal of hundreds of desert tortoises (an endangered species), it cooks lots of birds, it creates its own local weather that is disrupting regional weather patterns, it uses far too much ground water, and in total is an environmental disaster.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by slick_miester View Post

                                Is there something in the water that makes Jersyites irresponsible drivers?
                                Well, the irresponsible part isn't just a Jersey problem. For some reason, DMV hands out licenses to any idiot.
                                ALL LIVES SPLATTER!

                                BLACK JEEPS MATTER!

                                BLACK MOTORCYCLES MATTER!

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X