Electric Cars

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by SprintBob

This is a picture of a typical lithium mine:

http://futureofenergy.web.unc.edu/picture1-2/

Not pretty at all. Just Goggle “lithium mining” and you will see a lot of the same.

On the other hand at least you can clearly see the lithium mine

[robj144]

Originally Posted by joe white

One thing that I have been curious to know is the cost to "fill up" or recharge an electric vehicle once it's charge has been depleted.

I'm also curious about how the electric providers code the usage for charging an electric vehicle. Will the rate be higher, lower?

In my area, if you add a meter on your property for an extra building like a storage barn or hobby shop she shed etc, it is charged a commercial rate no matter the use and those rates are high. I had a shop at my last home that was metered that way and while I used about half the kilowatts per month than our home, the billed amount was higher than the home due to the commercial rate.

How do those charging stations work? Are you charged the rate of electricity based on your home or the local commercial rate? How are you billed or how do you pay?

I did the calculation years ago for my electric rate at the time. But to fill completely charge a Model S (standard battery) it was about $15 to $20. At the time gas was $3+. To completely fill my tank at the time was about $35.

Cost per mile was kind of similar a the time. Tesla was about 7 cents a mile and gas was about 9 cents a mile.

Haven't done it recently though.

To me, it's not really about cost savings so much. It's about slightly reducing the ecological impact (making the batteries is not great for the environment), the smooth driving experience, and the amazing tech. Although it has drawbacks for long drives, I think it's also convenient to "top off" your vehicle from inside your own garage too.

[imwjl]

I don't understand why people think innovation is nonsense or something we can't talk about. Whether it's the company I'm in or my metro area and city, the changes I see are great. The innovation we're seeing didn't happen by force or law.

Having homes in two very different places, these changes are obviously something that makes more sense where we have a house with county population of 600,000 vs the one with 27,000 people. There are 1.5 million people by our business unit where the BEVs, e-assist bikes and multi-mode transportation is popular.

The innovation just happened. There are things and places that have subsidized, but that's been going on my whole life as a boomer. Highways, space travel, public goods, some industries have been that way my whole life.

When I was in a poor country this past January and away from where most tourists go I saw the battery powered changes too. Obviously for communication but people getting e-assist bikes because of how much they can do in the context of cost and convenience.

When we (US) went from giving railroads all sorts of help to the auto industry, rail did not die. Carburetors, wired phones, and houses with boilers lived well into what came next.

We'll (homo sapiens) be just fine everyone! We're resilient, think, and through history keep improving all sorts of things even if you don't see it as individuals.

[AX17609]

I just discovered that there are at least as many, if not more, EV charging stations within 10 miles of my house than there are gas stations. Two of the local wineries have one. As far as travel is concerned, there appear to be Tesla stations all over the place. I counted 20 between DC and Columbus, OH. Pretty clearly, this technology has crept in while I wasn't looking. I'm astonished.

[rokdog49]

Originally Posted by KevWind

On the other hand at least you can clearly see the lithium mine

Nothing is without a cost and it’s good to see all aspects of this:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lith...ronment-impact

[Birdbrain]

If you're interested and supportive of electric vehicles but not quite sure they'll fit your driving habits and locale, you might try the halfway option with a plug-in hybrid. Mine is giving me over 600 miles per tank of gas, and 60 mpg overall in mixed use. Twenty miles of plug-in EV range doesn't sound like much, but it covers all my neighborhood necessity trips to the grocery, hardware store and ... where else can you go these days? After the day's plug-in charge is spent, the hybrid system is still storing energy from stops and handling those low-speed duties that gas engines are so inefficient at. On the days when I need to drive several hundred miles (several times per months for me), it's just a normal 40 mpg car that can be refueled anywhere.

After a year or so driving a plug-in hybrid, you'd probably know better whether you wanted to take the next step and go all-EV. After three years with my Ford C-Max Energi, I don't. This seems like the best compromise for me. My combined fuel cost is under a nickel per mile. I'm happy it has a smaller battery with limited EV range. I prefer to leave those rare battery materials to buses, trucks and other fleet vehicles that would use them all day, every day. They'd do more enviro good there than locked passively in the trunk of some commuter's Tesla, awaiting the short drive home.

[KevWind]

,

Originally Posted by rokdog49

Nothing is without a cost and it’s good to see all aspects of this:

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/lith...ronment-impact

Very true there is no free lunch BUT it's a matter of prioritizing and while there are issues with battery production, as the article says "the environmental impact of finding all the lithium required could become a major issue in its own right' .

But that is not a reason to not develop EV's as fast as possible, because the mining issue does nothing to change the fact the what is represented in the photo of "Autos you can barely see" is already a major environmental issue.
And is considered by most of those in the most applicable sciences , as arguably a the much more urgent and more impactful issue facing the planet today.
Because left unaddressed "worst case" if it were to materialize, could (one "could" deserves another ) possibly mean there may be little intact civilization as we know it today, 50 to 75 years down the road to even worry about commute transportation , which is another aspect to ponder .,,,, Juss sayin'

Make no mistake in full disclosure I am as guilty as any, maybe even more, in that we (my wife and I) own no EVs BUT do own an inordinate number of internal combustion vehicles, (actually 10 in all.... 4 gas and 6 diesel ) BUT being retired, we do not commute daily for work, in fact living where we do we do not drive very much at all. So what can I say that isn't at least a tad bit contradictory

[SprintBob]

Originally Posted by KevWind

,

Very true there is no free lunch BUT it's a matter of prioritizing and while there are issues with battery production, as the article says "the environmental impact of finding all the lithium required could become a major issue in its own right' .

But that is not a reason to not develop EV's as fast as possible, because the mining issue does nothing to change the fact the what is represented in the photo of "Autos you can barely see" is already a major environmental issue.
And is considered by most of those in the most applicable sciences , as arguably a the much more urgent and more impactful issue facing the planet today.
Because left unaddressed "worst case" if it were to materialize, could (one "could" deserves another ) possibly mean there may be little intact civilization as we know it today, 50 to 75 years down the road , to even ponder all aspects.,,,, Juss sayin'

Not yet mentioned in this thread might be more focus on bringing hydrogen fuel cell technology to an affordable state. Many of the technical and safety challenges have been met so much of the current high cost is due to lack of infrastructure. There is less environmental impact compared both to EV’s (the lithium mining and extraction issues) and current internal combustion engine technology. Fuel cell technology probably has the best application to commercial ground transportation also if infrastructure could be developed. The extreme challenges would have to be commercial maritime and aviation. I don’t believe current fuel cell technology is applicable to either and for the near and probably distant future, further development to make current engine and propulsion technology cleaner and more efficient is most likely the best path forward.

If you look at the current state of technology of the internal combustion engine and look at the progress at cleaning up emissions and improving efficiency since the 1970’s, it’s actually quite impressive. So who is to say the best engineering minds are not yet done with it if the motivation is there to make it better. Politics and money usually drive that.

Oil and related petrochemical products are still vital to the current comforts we enjoy in the developed world. Plastics in particular are heavily integrated into much of what we touch every day and (to me) just as critical a discussion as climate change is a discussion on managing and recycling plastic waste. It’s a borderline profitable venture that needs to be made more lucrative to the private sector.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by SprintBob

Not yet mentioned in this thread might be more focus on bringing hydrogen fuel cell technology to an affordable state. Many of the technical and safety challenges have been met so much of the current high cost is due to lack of infrastructure. There is less environmental impact compared both to EV’s (the lithium mining and extraction issues) and current internal combustion engine technology. Fuel cell technology probably has the best application to commercial ground transportation also if infrastructure could be developed. The extreme challenges would have to be commercial maritime and aviation. I don’t believe current fuel cell technology is applicable to either and for the near and probably distant future, further development to make current engine and propulsion technology cleaner and more efficient is most likely the best path forward.

If you look at the current state of technology of the internal combustion engine and look at the progress at cleaning up emissions and improving efficiency since the 1970’s, it’s actually quite impressive. So who is to say the best engineering minds are not yet done with it if the motivation is there to make it better. Politics and money usually drive that .

I Agree, very salient points about hydrogen (or who knows what new fuel cell tech) but again that does not change the point specifically about EV vs IC for short commute use . Because the more short distance commuting is moved to EV (which is far and away the single largest numbers of vehicles and millions of gallons of fuel use ) and is already starting to happen and (already has quite a bit of infrastructure in place and exponentially increasing everyday )
Such that in the interim say 20 years, the more more Gas and diesel will be available for those longer individual auto travel, recreation, trucking, maritime, and aviation, as well as the petrochemical uses you mentioned. AND will dramatically reduce the carbon footprint in that same 20 years as well.
I guess I cannot understand why people do not see that as win win ? OK I am done ...............carry on

[SprintBob]

Originally Posted by KevWind

I Agree, very salient points about hydrogen (or who knows what new fuel cell tech) but again that does not change the point specifically about EV vs IC for short commute use . Because the more short distance commuting is moved to EV (which is far and away the single largest numbers of vehicles and millions of gallons of fuel use ) and is already starting to happen and (already has quite a bit of infrastructure in place and exponentially increasing everyday )
Such that in the interim say 20 years, the more more Gas and diesel will be available for those longer individual auto travel, recreation, trucking, maritime, and aviation, as well as the petrochemical uses you mentioned. AND will dramatically reduce the carbon footprint in that same 20 years as well.
I guess I cannot understand why people do not see that as win win ? OK I am done ...............carry on

That’s what I see too. I still get frustrated (perhaps angry) when I hear statements demonizing the oil and petrochemical industry because without it, we will not maintain our current standard of living for the near and probably distant future (as in fuels, lubricants, plastics (including carbon fiber), adhesives, paints, etc., etc.).

[rokdog49]

All I know is showing a photo like the one Kevwind posted isn’t at all representative of 95% of the situation in the United States today.
We have come a long, long way in the reduction of pollutants from vehicles.
I’ll wager those fires out west a couple of months ago put more pollution into the air and over a larger amount of geography than the cars do in a year in the same regions.
Hey, all I know is whatever we do to produce energy, there is no such thing as “clean”. Cleaner? ...maybe.
I’m done too.

[imwjl]

Distribution is a challenge for hydrogen but, follow trucking and possibly busses got a glimpse of what's ahead there. It's also important to follow recycling strategies for new ways of transportation.

My guess is some fleets that have benefited with gas conversions will be candidates for hydrogen.

There's often surprise with the state of charge networks so people unaware of that should also know the electrification is happening with heavy duty trucks too. The major truck makers are taking orders if not shipping their battery powered trucks. Buses too. There we have new competition such as BYD manufacturing and delivering in the US.

Overall I think it has to be convenient products FTW and especially in the US. BEVs seem to be doing that. My boss with two Teslas and one on order is quick to admit there's no thinking he's saving the earth. He likes his Teslas because they're convenient, fast, and are ahead of others on the robotics front.

[AX17609]

Originally Posted by imwjl

My boss with two Teslas and one on order is quick to admit there's no thinking he's saving the earth. He likes his Teslas because they're convenient, fast, and are ahead of others on the robotics front.

This comment gets to the essence of the question that motivated my original post. Setting aside the 'save the earth' aspects, for someone with a certain amount of money, what would motivate them to buy a Tesla Model 3 as opposed to any traditional car of equivalent cost?

My research has lead to a few conclusions.

First, the Model 3 is an impressive piece of engineering. It's beyond any other similarly priced EV on the market.

Second, Tesla is not a car company. They're a battery and software company that happens to make cars. They're just as happy making solar roof shingles, electrifying an island and going to Mars. These products are as much 'proof of concept' as viable consumer products.

Third, Tesla didn't start out understanding how to make cars, and they've been learning on the job. Current buyers are essentially beta-testers for EVs. The company tends to roll out insufficiently tested products to an overly enthusiastic user community.

Fourth, Tesla has a blind spot in the area of human factors engineering. There are many aspect of the Model 3 than are more clever than useful. There are also aspects that should have been designed around a long time ago.

Fifth, fit and finish remain issues. Quality control is not Tesla's strong suit. Like a software company rolling out a new operating system, they tend to fix problems on the fly rather than before issuance.

Sixth, Tesla doesn't integrate well with other technologies. Their refusal to integrate with Apple Car Play, for example, is emblematic of a 'do it our way' type of thinking that requires buyers to accept the Model 3 as an all-or-nothing type of purchase.

There's more, but I'll stop there. Personally, I've concluded that I'm glad I don't have to buy a car for another couple of years. I'd like to see where EVs are going, particularly in the hands of an experienced car maker, before jumping in.

[imwjl]

Originally Posted by AX17609

This comment gets to the essence of the question that motivated my original post. Setting aside the 'save the earth' aspects, for someone with a certain amount of money, what would motivate them to buy a Tesla Model 3 as opposed to any traditional car of equivalent cost?

My research has lead to a few conclusions.

First, the Model 3 is an impressive piece of engineering. It's beyond any other similarly priced EV on the market.

Second, Tesla is not a car company. They're a battery and software company that happens to make cars. They're just as happy making solar roof shingles, electrifying an island and going to Mars. These products are as much 'proof of concept' as viable consumer products.

Third, Tesla didn't start out understanding how to make cars, and they've been learning on the job. Current buyers are essentially beta-testers for EVs. The company tends to roll out insufficiently tested products to an overly enthusiastic user community.

Fourth, Tesla has a blind spot in the area of human factors engineering. There are many aspect of the Model 3 than are more clever than useful. There are also aspects that should have been designed around a long time ago.

Fifth, fit and finish remain issues. Quality control is not Tesla's strong suit. Like a software company rolling out a new operating system, they tend to fix problems on the fly rather than before issuance.

Sixth, Tesla doesn't integrate well with other technologies. Their refusal to integrate with Apple Car Play, for example, is emblematic of a 'do it our way' type of thinking that requires buyers to accept the Model 3 as an all-or-nothing type of purchase.

There's more, but I'll stop there. Personally, I've concluded that I'm glad I don't have to buy a car for another couple of years. I'd like to see where EVs are going, particularly in the hands of an experienced car maker, before jumping in.

On fit and finish, two of the owners close to me consider it almost a non-issue because they haven't had new vehicle build issues where stuff just didn't work. One compares to GM and Fords he has, and the other points out he's not a car detailer.

Both acknowledge no Car Play and point out the Tesla phone integration isn't the mess other car electronics have been.

For Tesla and VW to some extent it's interesting to look at the manufacturing aspects. Tesla did a lot of simplification with Model Y even though it's so Model 3 like. Not long ago there was news about VAG creating a software entity within the organization and that made sense - not putting together the separate work, components and subcontractors typical in the auto industry.

It really looks like we have new era where we judge cars by how good the software and manufacturing are.

FYI, The VW ID.4 is about to ship. I catch some comments critical of range for first models but two existing BEV owners I know think it's fine if you look at the vehicle format and price relative to a Model Y.

Our ready to buy Bolt or Tesla but did not was about the lack of current offerings and not being afraid or finding lots of faults. It won't be mine to drive but we'll have Tesla company cars soon.

[Fogducker]

Electric cars are great but along with the old saying "There is no free lunch!" the energy has to come from somewhere. About 60% of electricity comes from the hated fossil fuels. So keep up the research in solar, wind, hydrogen etc. (Nuclear is completely off the table) but for now, we will have to deal with the cards we hold. Sure is nice to be energy independent.

Following along with the money, the governmental units are in a frenzy about how to tax things so they can do their spending.

Fog