Tesla to build $35K Model 3 for 2017

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

This is incorrect.

My whole point is a 13 year old Tesla still generates zero emissions locally, and remote emissions will be largely the same.

With internal combustion engines, emissions typically degrade as the vehicle ages. Emissions control systems on passenger cars are incredibly complex.

There are tons of cars out there with faulty EGR valves, idle control valves, exhaust leaks, head gasket or valve cover leaks, all with owners having no clue and still driving them around. Then add people that will ignore a check engine light, and you have people with failed MAF sensors, O2 sensors or catalytic converters. Internal combustion engine emissions systems are highly complex now. On VW diesels I think it's about $4,000 when the Diesel Particulate Filter needs replacement. Most people just remove them instead, and more polluted air for all of us.

At a power plant there are regular maintenance checks and heavy regulation. I'd rather a plant technician be responsible for my clean air than anyone I've seen in charge of maintaining their car besides a select few.

That's not what you initially said though. You said a tesla powered by a coal plant is sooo much better than Joe Blow's 13 year old car.

Great, so is a brand new version of Joe blow's car.
If Joe blow can't affoard a new Tesla the debate on that specific point is moot.

If Joe can affoard a new tesla then he can also affoard a new something else and that's where the comparison should be drawn. I still very well could be the Tesla winning out in the end, I'm not going to argue that I think it wouldn't.

I don't know what you're comparing with remote vs. local emmssions? I'm guessing local would be at the point of energy use (ie the driven vehicle), but I'm not sure the point given wherever the emission takes place it's still an emmission. So it needs to be proven that the coal plant burn per unit of energy is better than the burning and creation of gasoline + transport to end user burn per unit.

Another thing I'm curious about - is there a drain factor on these vehicles? If you leave your car sitting on the driveway it doesn't run out of gas, what's the unused discharge rate of a tesla battery and as they get old are we going to see teslas that require being constantly charged (much like I'm doing with my stupid RV batteries ) or old cell phones that die very quickly.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

That used to be true, but isn't any more. Canada produces more energy in oil than it does in gas, and the energy in oil is worth much more than the energy in gas.

Plus, oil development is more "people dense" than gas development, especially the way we do it here, with giant oil sands projects.

I'm talking more about volume in the ground, not volume produced, but you have some points.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Ummm.... Are you talking about Natural Gas? Which has nothing to do with gasoline... other than it might be used as a fuel to run camps and equipment to generate power to extract oil which can then be turned into gasoline to fuel vehicles.

I was just pointing out that the Oil and Natural Gas economy of Alberta isn't entirely dependent on oil prices, but that Natural Gas prices should be considered too. And your point was what I was trying to get at, that Natural Gas prices have little to do with gasoline, so a move away from gasoline transportation will not affect natural gas as much.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

There is a big need for a stepping stone.

Every single good you consume has transportation costs.

Food is one such good that has a massive portion of it's overall cost to produce coming from transportation.

It's pretty easy when almost every single person here is in the top 5% of wealth in the world to say that you're willing to pay more for energy and goods because the environment is important to you.

The reality is that a bump of 10% in energy costs causes a large segment of the world's population to go hungry.

This is not the place for an abrupt change, but rather a measured one with a lot of foresight.

I agree I'd love to see Calgary become an energy hub and not just a fossil fuel hub. But to get money for research you need people to have a profit motive. Right now renewables don't look to hold an impending solution to world energy demand, so it's difficult to drive much investment there.

See I think we should really be past profit motive. I understand its currently what makes the world go round but its also what currently stalls it. Many industries, including forms of energy the world use to rely on have gone under for the sake of progress. This has to be one of them. And as sad as it is that people will lose jobs etc new jobs will also be created. And yes transportation costs money because oil costs money. But if energy is renewable and thus no longer scarce, along with a shift to electric modes of transportation, I believe the cost of transportation actually decreases. If its at the cost of Albertas boom, or Saudis boom, so be it. Sacrifices have to be made in the name of progress. Not being willing to make those sacrifices is what is holding us back. Not Alberta, people.

[Neeper]

I am with you MattyC!

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Ummm.... Are you talking about Natural Gas? Which has nothing to do with gasoline... other than it might be used as a fuel to run camps and equipment to generate power to extract oil which can then be turned into gasoline to fuel vehicles.

That was his point. Alberta will be ok with decreased internal combustion engine use, as it does not affect natural gas usage, which is the major resource in Alberta, quantity wise.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

That's not what you initially said though. You said a tesla powered by a coal plant is sooo much better than Joe Blow's 13 year old car.

Great, so is a brand new version of Joe blow's car.
If Joe blow can't affoard a new Tesla the debate on that specific point is moot.

If Joe can affoard a new tesla then he can also affoard a new something else and that's where the comparison should be drawn. I still very well could be the Tesla winning out in the end, I'm not going to argue that I think it wouldn't.

You're missing the point. There will always be older cars on the road.

If Joe buys a Tesla now instead of a Civic, one day there will be a 13 year old Tesla on the road instead of a 13 year old Civic. The emissions of an older EV don't change besides slightly decreased charging efficiency.

Emissions from a 13 year old car can get pretty nasty.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

I don't know what you're comparing with remote vs. local emmssions? I'm guessing local would be at the point of energy use (ie the driven vehicle), but I'm not sure the point given wherever the emission takes place it's still an emmission.

Because I breath air beside automobiles all the time. I'm rarely hanging out by power plants. Emissions coming out of cars have a greater negative impact on my health than the ones coming out of a power plant.

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Another thing I'm curious about - is there a drain factor on these vehicles? If you leave your car sitting on the driveway it doesn't run out of gas, what's the unused discharge rate of a tesla battery and as they get old are we going to see teslas that require being constantly charged (much like I'm doing with my stupid RV batteries ) or old cell phones that die very quickly.

Storage of energy in fossil fuels is currently far superior to storage of electricity. There is no debate there. That is why these cars are ideal for commuters, daily use, short trips.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by MattyC

See I think we should really be past profit motive. I understand its currently what makes the world go round but its also what currently stalls it. Many industries, including forms of energy the world use to rely on have gone under for the sake of progress. This has to be one of them. And as sad as it is that people will lose jobs etc new jobs will also be created. And yes transportation costs money because oil costs money. But if energy is renewable and thus no longer scarce, along with a shift to electric modes of transportation, I believe the cost of transportation actually decreases. If its at the cost of Albertas boom, or Saudis boom, so be it. Sacrifices have to be made in the name of progress. Not being willing to make those sacrifices is what is holding us back. Not Alberta, people.

I don't argue with any of that, except being past the profit motive.

There were great advances in Agriculture in the 19th and 20th centuries. Food costs per person have decreased dramatically for the developed world, and the amount of people in the agricultural workforce in these countries dropped dramatically as well.

Now we are in an energy economy, and a great deal of the world's resources are going toward that industry. I believe it will head down a similar path as agriculture, and global industry will have a new focus. The thing is, in the past these shifts came about because of profit motive. Whoever can make energy for less money and using less people will make a ton of money.

I just can't imagine everyone paying a portion of their taxes towards energy research and having much come out of it. There needs to be an incentive beyond personal fame for this kind of thing, and that is lost if you have government agencies as your sole source of research.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by MattyC

See I think we should really be past profit motive. I understand its currently what makes the world go round but its also what currently stalls it. Many industries, including forms of energy the world use to rely on have gone under for the sake of progress.

That progress generally being something that is cheaper than before.

But if energy is renewable and thus no longer scarce, along with a shift to electric modes of transportation, I believe the cost of transportation actually decreases.

Canada's electricity is already 60%+ renewable since it has significant hydro resources. But not every form of transportation has quick access to recharging stations and electric lines or can afford the weight penalty of the battery packs.

If its at the cost of Albertas boom, or Saudis boom, so be it. Sacrifices have to be made in the name of progress. Not being willing to make those sacrifices is what is holding us back. Not Alberta, people.

It has to be the right progress; given Canada's current situation with its extremely clean electricity, it shouldn't waste any time, effort and money on the sideshows of wind and electricity, it should go full out into thorium power (with the eventual goal of fusion) and batteries with a magnitude better density.

[Coach]

Is human progress not incentive enough? It really should be. People looking for a "common enemy" to help create some peace, how about our preservation?

Profit.motivations can be nice, but their also the cause of things like pinching pennies on something as simple as emmissions for a company making billions of dollars of profit. Maybe we should be following the example of the name sake in this thread, and the man who runs this aptly named company.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by accord1999

That progress generally being something that is cheaper than before.

Canada's electricity is already 60%+ renewable since it has significant hydro resources. But not every form of transportation has quick access to recharging stations and electric lines or can afford the weight penalty of the battery packs.

It has to be the right progress; given Canada's current situation with its extremely clean electricity, it shouldn't waste any time, effort and money on the sideshows of wind and electricity, it should go full out into thorium power (with the eventual goal of fusion) and batteries with a magnitude better density.

I don't disagree at all with thorium power, I think it's a great avenue to go. And considering the relative stability of the land and climate in Alberta it would likely be a perfect fit here.

I bolded Canada your post because I think it reflects the root of the problem. This is not Calgary's, Alberta's, or Canada's problem, it's everyone's problem. Economies no longer act separate, no matter how isolated the country is. We truly are part of a global economy and it becomes moreso each day. I believe we are at the point where we can no longer think separately or it will be our downfall. It is the world's duty to find a solution to this problem, and as a part of the globe that will be immensely adversely affected by a global shift away from fossil fuels, you would think we'd have the foresight and the motivation to innovate to find a way to move away from it.

The lack of this by many business executives, smart people, really astounds me. And tells me that they really are selfish enough to continue hording the billions they rake in and putting those resources back into finding new ways to get more oil out, because hey, they'll probably be dead by the time its gone anyways so what do they care? Knowing full well they are leaving a humungous problem for the next generation.

It's a terrible line of thinking and it truly makes me sad.

[Nehkara]

This would be a great way to go:

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

That's not what you initially said though. You said a tesla powered by a coal plant is sooo much better than Joe Blow's 13 year old car.

Great, so is a brand new version of Joe blow's car.
If Joe blow can't affoard a new Tesla the debate on that specific point is moot.

If Joe can affoard a new tesla then he can also affoard a new something else and that's where the comparison should be drawn. I still very well could be the Tesla winning out in the end, I'm not going to argue that I think it wouldn't.

I don't know what you're comparing with remote vs. local emmssions? I'm guessing local would be at the point of energy use (ie the driven vehicle), but I'm not sure the point given wherever the emission takes place it's still an emmission. So it needs to be proven that the coal plant burn per unit of energy is better than the burning and creation of gasoline + transport to end user burn per unit.

Another thing I'm curious about - is there a drain factor on these vehicles? If you leave your car sitting on the driveway it doesn't run out of gas, what's the unused discharge rate of a tesla battery and as they get old are we going to see teslas that require being constantly charged (much like I'm doing with my stupid RV batteries ) or old cell phones that die very quickly.

Yes they will drain slowly if left on. Any time the ESC is on it will draw a low current. Most high end controllers like Kelly Controllers have an Auto shut off if the motor goes unsed in 5 mins. The chemistry of lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide has a low self discharge rate. You shouldn't have any problem keeping a charge for its life but your capacity will be affected. Your rv battery is a completely different beast. Theire is no mico circuit board on there to control that sort of thing as on a protected version (some come unprotected tho)18650 cell. Depending on what your idea of an old phone is they were either NiMH or the newer ones are lipo pouch packs. .

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

This would be a great way to go

I would expect Germany will be over flowing with EVs in the next decade
Germany Has entire towns covers in them.





A lot of the parking lots are covered as well. Had to put spoiler tag as its a big pic.

Spoiler!

[

[photon]

Snowcatchers!

Spoiler!

[Nehkara]

Originally Posted by photon

Snowcatchers!

Spoiler!

Snow usually sheds off of them pretty fast... but yeah in the winter when it's cloudy or stormy they won't generate a lot.

[combustiblefuel]

Some have heaters built in.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

That was his point. Alberta will be ok with decreased internal combustion engine use, as it does not affect natural gas usage, which is the major resource in Alberta, quantity wise.



You're missing the point. There will always be older cars on the road.

If Joe buys a Tesla now instead of a Civic, one day there will be a 13 year old Tesla on the road instead of a 13 year old Civic. The emissions of an older EV don't change besides slightly decreased charging efficiency.

Emissions from a 13 year old car can get pretty nasty.



Because I breath air beside automobiles all the time. I'm rarely hanging out by power plants. Emissions coming out of cars have a greater negative impact on my health than the ones coming out of a power plant.



Storage of energy in fossil fuels is currently far superior to storage of electricity. There is no debate there. That is why these cars are ideal for commuters, daily use, short trips.

I might have been missing the point - but you might not have really worded it particularly well as I understood immediately what you were trying to say in this most recent reply.

2015 Honda Civic in 13 years vs. Tesla is 13... I don't know, no one has done a comparison because it hasn't happened yet.

Don't get me wrong - I think it's a great idea and an incredible beneficial situation. I just think it would be a bit better if we had a few nuclear power plants vs. coal plants. I'd like to see Alberta build some in the next decade.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by photon

Snowcatchers!

Spoiler!

Hey, are those what the ugly parking stalls at one of the office buildings in Quarry park has? Or are they just ugly parking stalls with no other purpose than to be ugly and stop snow from "directly" dropping on your vehicle?

[Swarez]

Am I the only one who thinks a little more selfishly on this issue?
I just don't want to pay to make the wheels move on my car anymore.

Just a cheap SOB who hates paying 350-400/month to fill up is BMW.