Results 1 to 78 of 78

Thread: Electric Cars

  1. #1
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,004

    Default Electric Cars

    I'm seeing a lot of news regarding electric cars, and the major automakers are bringing in electric vehicles targeted at the mainstream (Chevy Volt).

    Which is good, I suppose.

    But I'm wondering about how much electricity it takes to charge the battery. If it's a minimal amount (like plugging in your regular car battery in winter) it might not be a big deal, but if it's not (especially cumulatively), what's to keep electric vehicle owners from plugging their cars in at work or any outdoor electric outlet)? Is it possible we'll have to put password protected switches (or something) on our outlets?

    Just wondering.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ I believe most electric cars being made require a higher amperage and/or voltage, meaning a basic 120V/15A outlet won't do.

    ETA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car#Connectors for example.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  3. #3

    Default

    Using a cardlock style system that charges the power to your account. See emerging tech article below:

    http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=17081

    The same tech would wind up in parkades and other places where urban commuters would likely want to charge their vehicles.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  4. #4
    Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    835

    Default

    Electric cars are vulnerable to the same criticism as the trolley buses: because we produce the majority of our power using dirty technology, plugging something into a socket can be just as bad as starting an engine.

    (I don't want to start a new debate on trolley buses, and understand the frustration of those who advocated for them.)

    Environmentalists are preoccupied with the oil sands, but coal burning is a bigger problem in terms of carbon emissions, and there are strategies we could implement immediately to make electrical generation less harmful. If we don't change the way we make power, the benefits of electric cars will not be realized.
    http://www.twitter.com/ckls

  5. #5

    Default

    GG, that's completely off topic from what Jimbo was asking. This is a distribution and billing topic, not an environmental one.

    The link I provided discusses emerging technology that would use a cardlock style system to ID the user and charge the electricity to that account. If the plug is removed, the connection is severed to prevent people from "siphoning" electricity from an active plug. I've read about other companies and they're all developing similar technology, so I think it's safe to assume that at some point in the future all public car charging ports will work with a card system, be pay-as-you-go (pop $2 into the machine), or be included in the rate for parking.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  6. #6

    Default

    Electric is much more efficient than a car powered by petro.. even if the electricity is produced by coal.

    You may want to check out the specs of the nissian leaf as it will tell you about charging times and ways of dong it. The leaf ,I believe, can e charged over 8 hours using a normal plug. There will be a quick charge option as well which may require 220.

  7. #7

    Default

    I remember reading, don't remember the source though, that the total energy will be about the same as the monthly cost for a washing machine (I guess hot water and electricity). Others have disputed that though. I guess it depends on how far you drive.

    Regardless, electric vehicles are considerably more efficient that gasoline, thanks to electric motors rather than the internal combustion engine. The isuse is range, cost and recycling the battery, but all of those are improving - e.g. the Leaf or the Volt. Eventually, pure electric vehicles should cost less (esp. if no range extender), and last much longer (although battery may need to change after 5 or 10 years) as there are fewer moving parts. It will take a while for the scale to build up, for that to the be the case though.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-12-2009 at 12:45 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf

    The Leaf uses a front-mounted electric motor driving the wheels, powered by a 24kW·h/90 kW lithium ion battery pack.
    The battery can be charged to 80% capacity in about 30 minutes with a special quick charger[9] that sends 440/480 volt direct current to the battery. It can also be charged from a conventional 110- or 220-volt alternating current outlet.
    80% of 24KWh is 19.2KWh, or roughly the daily usage of an apartment. Getting that into a battery inside of 30 minutes isn't currently feasible with the current residential electricity grid, as it's simply not built to that sort of demand or supply voltage. You'd be able to get a quick charge at a central location, but at home? Be prepared for huge costs for installation and electricity service.

    40 KW of demand is needed to put 20KWh of power into a battery in half an hour, at 100% efficiency, which isn't possible for recharging.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  9. #9

    Default

    ^Most people aren't going to run them down to 0 every day though, most of us don't do 160km of driving every day. On a 220, it is supposed to be an 8 hour charge, so just put a 220 in the garage (not a big deal), and will charge fully overnight.

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,004

    Default

    Thanks for the replies. I even feel guilty when I charge my bicycle light battery at work. Well, not that guilty. If I had an electric car that could be charged fully in 8 hours on normal outlets, I'd charge it at work all of the time. I'm sure everyone would. Which would present a dilemma for businesses, epecially those with lots of employees.

    Maybe it becomes a perk at work. There has to be a tipping point where it becomes an issue.

    I've been hearing a lot about recent technologies demonstrated in Copenhagen which dramatically reduce the environmental impact of coal powered plants.

    I think electric cars might be the way to go in the near future. I'd sure prefer cycling behind one of them to, for example, waiting behind a gas powered car at a stop light. It's very hard to breathe sometimes. If people had to breathe their own exhaust, then we'd see some action on this, stat.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  11. #11

    Default

    I recently read that as electricity infrastructure becomes more advanced (smart grids) electric cars connected to the system could be used as batteries to store surplus power than can be drawn on as electricity is needed.


    Added intelligence would also make it much easier to cope with the demand from electric cars by making sure that not all of a neighbourhood’s vehicles are being charged at the same time. Although this is still many years away, the cars’ batteries could even be used to feed electricity back into the grid if needed, and so act as a vast electricity-storage system.
    http://www.economist.com/displaystor...ry_id=14586006

  12. #12
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    11,167

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jimbo View Post
    Thanks for the replies. I even feel guilty when I charge my bicycle light battery at work. Well, not that guilty. If I had an electric car that could be charged fully in 8 hours on normal outlets, I'd charge it at work all of the time. I'm sure everyone would. Which would present a dilemma for businesses, epecially those with lots of employees.

    Maybe it becomes a perk at work. There has to be a tipping point where it becomes an issue.
    ...
    not sure that your bike light battery warrants guilt, particularly for someone brave (foolhardy ) enough to commute by bike year round...

    it's an interesting dilema for landlords and developers as well though. from a leed perspective (for those designing by report card alsone as much as by good design), you have to demonstrate that your overall consumption is a minimum percentage better than a base line building. you may get an innovation point for encouraging electric cars and lose your certification all together. at this point, we're planning for the capacity but not installing the internal distribution within the parkade until we can resolve not only the metering but also some of the technical issues (i.e. not only how much load will be imposed at a given location but at what voltage and whether there will be a "universal" plug and what effect timers might have etc.). individual metering is also under discussion (in the same manner that you "plug" a parking meter for a certain amount of time, you would "plug" the electrical meter for a certain amount of power).
    Last edited by kcantor; 16-12-2009 at 03:41 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  13. #13

    Default

    A little off-topic, but has anyone read any articles that discuss the battery life expectancy with the heater, heated seats, windshield/mirror defrost, full headlights (it's dark alot here in winter) and wheel slip factored in?

    Say for example an EV is advertised at 200km range, that's of course MAX, with a 90lb grandma driving at peak efficiency with no features turned on in an otherwise empty car.

    Throw in your average 150lb person, a passenger (carpooling is good, remember?) 50lbs of junk in the trunk, all the "winter" things I mentioned above and have it driven on icy roads where the tires are slipping 20% of the time at intersections in stop and go traffic. What does that 200km range fall to? 100km? 50km?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    A little off-topic, but has anyone read any articles that discuss the battery life expectancy with the heater, heated seats, windshield/mirror defrost, full headlights (it's dark alot here in winter) and wheel slip factored in?
    The leaf was offered up to test drive in Vancouver recently:

    http://www.canadiandriver.com/2009/1...le-in-2011.htm

    I saw on a TV review the range will drop a bit from the 160km, but it will still be enough for most commuters (until someone drives it in -40 here though, I guess we won't know exactly how much). They said it was more fun to drive than a Versa, and did fine in the cold weather they were having. And, you can charge it up again each night.

  15. #15

    Default

    I think the Volt is the better option. In the volt the petrol engine is nothing more than a generator that charges the batteries.

    What I don't understand is, if the volts engine is simply a generator, why didn't they use diesel ? Why is North America so adverse to diesel cars?
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 16-12-2009 at 04:43 PM.

  16. #16

    Default

    ^The problem with the volt is cost. You pay for two power trains, instead of one, so it will cost more than the Leaf. Also, the battery has to pull that extra weight of the fuel tank and combustion engine. It will be interesting to see how both do though. At some point Nissan could tack a small combustion engine (or one day, a fuel cell) onto its system too, if they think more range is required.

  17. #17

    Default

    I think you can only call the gasoline backup a half powertrain, as it either delivers electricity to the electric motor or the batteries, the engine doesn't power a drive train directly.

    The range is 40 Miles before the engine kicks in. or 60 km.

  18. #18

    Default

    ^which is about what the plug-in prius will do on electric as well. Volt is cool though, the engine is simpler than regular combustion engine as no need to operate at different rev and torque bands. The price of over 40k is a bit scary though for a small four seater, the Leaf should come in closer to 25k and offer 5 passanger room.

  19. #19

    Default

    From Cnet http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-10037173-48.html

    the Volt can slip through about 85 percent of the EPA's test cycle without even firing up the gasoline engine. Using the EPA's standard formulas to calculate fuel economy, the Volt averages over 100 mpg. The EPA doesn't think that astronomical number is fair and has revised its tests with the requirement that the Volt finish the test with its batteries close to full charge, which means the internal combustion engine must run for the entirety of the test, dropping fuel economy to about 48 mpg.
    GM, of course, argues back that the EPA's new test isn't fair because the test isn't representative of the way the Volt was designed to operate and doesn't reflect the Volt's plug-in option for battery charging.
    The truth lies somewhere in between, but the EPA rating assigned will play a big role in whether consumers think the $40,000 Volt is a good deal compared with the Toyota Prius and the upcoming, and even less expensive Honda Insight.

  20. #20
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    3,713

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^which is about what the plug-in prius will do on electric as well. Volt is cool though, the engine is simpler than regular combustion engine as no need to operate at different rev and torque bands. The price of over 40k is a bit scary though for a small four seater, the Leaf should come in closer to 25k and offer 5 passanger room.
    from what ive been reading the leaf could cost 25k plus the monthly cost of leasing the battery. it all adds up to an expensive car. these ev cars are gonna be serious money losers for the first generation imo.

  21. #21

    Default

    Nissan may not even sell the veh only lease them a la the EV1

  22. #22

    Default

    ^can you source that? Everything I have read is that they will be mass produced and mass sold very soon. The only thing they may lease is the battery, which could be replaced and recycled every 5 years (so auto will get better as batteries get better).

    Initial rollout of the Leaf starts at the end of 2010 with limited sales in the U.S., Japan and Europe and ramps up to mass market sales by 2012. Initial production will begin in Japan with 50,000 units a year capacity. By 2012 Nissan expects to have its Smyrna, Tenn. plant producing as many as 150,000 electric vehicles, including the battery as well.
    At full run, Nissan anticipates enough capacity in North America, Europe and Japan to produce 500,000 electric cars.*
    http://www.businessfleet.com/Blog/Au...est-Drive.aspx
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-12-2009 at 10:48 PM.

  23. #23

    Default

    The $25K-$33K figure I've been reading for the Leaf is also after factoring all of the US Government subsidies into the sticker cost. Without that, the cost would be closer to $45K

    Current LiIon batteries come in at about $700/kWh. $700 x 2400 = $16,800. Amortizing that over 5 years would be over $300/mo.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  24. #24

    Default

    Should have clarified, I was asking about EV-only cars, without any ICE generators.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  25. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^can you source that? Everything I have read is that they will be mass produced and mass sold very soon. The only thing they may lease is the battery, which could be replaced and recycled every 5 years (so auto will get better as batteries get better).

    Initial rollout of the Leaf starts at the end of 2010 with limited sales in the U.S., Japan and Europe and ramps up to mass market sales by 2012. Initial production will begin in Japan with 50,000 units a year capacity. By 2012 Nissan expects to have its Smyrna, Tenn. plant producing as many as 150,000 electric vehicles, including the battery as well.
    At full run, Nissan anticipates enough capacity in North America, Europe and Japan to produce 500,000 electric cars.*
    http://www.businessfleet.com/Blog/Au...est-Drive.aspx
    It was a news program on CBC..

    here is another article..
    According to Brian Carolin, Nissan's marketing executive for North America, the cost of the upcoming Leaf will be equivalent to the monthly cost of a fully loaded Honda Civic, plus the cost of its monthly fuel bill. To simplify pricing Carolin broke it down as such, "That means the purchase price (about $28,000) or comparable monthly payment for a high-end Civic plus the cost of the gasoline it would need to cover 1,200 miles (at 30 MPG and $3/gallon, about $120."

    Well maybe the words of Carolin are not easy to decipher. It appears as though he is trying to say that a Nissan Leaf will run about $120 more per month in payments if the vehicle is financed.

    For example, if a fully loaded Honda Civic can be leased for $319 per month. Adding in a monthly fuel cost of $120 brings the total monthly out of pocket expense to $439. Nissan will either sell or lease the Leaf and its battery at that same price.

    To add even more complicated numbers into the mix, Nissan plans to sell the car minus the battery and then lease the battery for around $120 per month. Additionally, Carolin added," We may sell the car and battery together, we may lease it as a package, or we may sell the car and lease the battery. We just haven't decided yet.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 17-12-2009 at 09:37 AM.

  26. #26

    Default

    Interesting...

    OWNERS CO-OPERATE IN ELECTRIC CAR GARAGE | Modern Mechanix
    http://blog.modernmechanix.com/owner...ic-car-garage/

  27. #27

    Default

    Remember the Wankel? Mazda's little rotary range extender is pretty neat:

    http://www.autonet.ca/en/2013/12/03/...ell-be-a-mazda

    Because it's smooth and silent and, most important, compact and light (100 kg), Mazda has found a way to incorporate a rotary engine in a module that can be fitted behind the rear wheels and under the trunk floor of the electric version of the Mazda2 (called Demio in Japan) subcompact hatchback, to provide an extra 200 kilometers of range, using about 9 liters of gas.

    2.25 l/100 km

    This means that a full charge and a full tank can take the Mazda2 EV as far as 400 kilometers, for an average fuel economy of 2.25 l/100 km. Not bad, considering this is the "worst" fuel economy you can achieve with this vehicle (if you charge if before you empty out the batteries, you don't need to use any fuel).
    I think its interesting, the future seems to be we will have electric cars, and they will be range extended either with clean burning hydrogen engine (or a small gasoline range like this), or a hydrogen fuel cell.

  28. #28

    Default

    Electric cars will reduce noise pollution too. And I expect, central plants for generation can be monitored and pollution far better filtered a lot cheaper too than through individual vehicles.

    People of color live in neighborhoods with more air pollution than whites, groundbreaking U.S. study shows
    Excerpt:

    "A first-of-its-kind study has found that on average in the U.S., people of color are exposed to 38 percent higher levels of nitrogen dioxide outdoor air pollution compared to white people. The health impacts from the difference in levels between whites and nonwhites found in the study are substantial. For example, researchers estimate that if nonwhites breathed the lower NO2 levels experienced by whites, it would prevent 7,000 deaths from heart disease alone among nonwhites each year."

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0415181327.htm

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,540

    Default

    Why are US stats always about race

  30. #30
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,379

    Default

    It seems that there is zero interest by governments in protecting people from the effects of noise pollution from cars.

  31. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    Why are US stats always about race
    The US produces, like, a TON of stats. Maybe you just notice the race-based ones?
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  32. #32

    Default

    two-in-front electric trike - might work well in downtown Edmonton for deliveries...

    Denmark's Tripl electric motorbike has more cargo space than a Mercedes E-Class estate.

    http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20150...inks-its-a-van


    http://da.tripl.com


    ~
    Last edited by KC; 26-09-2015 at 06:21 PM.

  33. #33
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,324

    Default

    While the DMC-12 isn't electric (sorry you can't use the 1.21 gigawatts from Mr. Fusion to power it) it would be cool if the new versions are ...
    http://arstechnica.com/cars/2016/01/...g-new-dmc-12s/

  34. #34

    Default Why are we still using lame lithium-ion batteries after so many promising alternatives?

    ...

    There are uncountable companies attempting to develop more compact battery technologies — the US government’s ARPA-E department tracks over 75 of them. Some of them even have compelling technologies that show strong results in a laboratory setting. When you improve one aspect of traditional batteries, you often pay for it elsewhere. A battery might be extremely efficient, but its capacity is small; or it might have great energy density, but it breaks down after just a few uses. It’s solving those problems and taking a battery into the commercial realm that trips so many up.

    ...

    Without a substantial increase in energy storage, it’s simply cheaper to continue improving lithium-ion batteries at a snail’s pace. Lithium-ion batteries are better than they once were. Tesla is spending big bucks to churn out batteries at its Gigafactory, some of which are expected to pack up to 100kWh. Engineers have gotten used to designing around the limitations of batteries. It’s cheaper and faster to do that than develop completely new types of batteries that might be better in the long run.

    Many researchers and energy analysts think it’s going to take a radical new chemistry to spur action. That could take decades. In the meantime, the big battery manufacturers are working on features to make the limited capacity of batteries more tolerable. For example, fast charging technologies in smartphones and electric vehicles.Right now, batteries improve at an estimated 5% per year — and while that might not sound like much, a decade of 5% improvements works out to batteries that hold about 1.6x more energy than what we have today. By that standard, a current Tesla Model S would have a nearly-500 mile range if manufactured in 2026.
    http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/2...g-alternatives

  35. #35

    Default

    New innovations though are definitely coming. Like anything else though, few people are risk takers when it comes to their purchase decisions. The producers would produce if only they could get someone to buy.



    Longer life batteries are coming to smartphones next year and novel tech is hitting in places like this:



    A new kind of battery that stores energy from solar and wind power cheaply and cleanly has hit the market. It is by far the cheapest of a new generation of large, long-lived batteries that could make it possible to rely heavily on intermittent, renewable energy sources

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/5...ts-the-market/

    Smartphones- boring market now but whatever works

    http://www.sciencealert.com/new-smar...rket-next-year
    Last edited by KC; 02-09-2016 at 10:05 AM.

  36. #36

    Default

    ^I don't think you read the article. As it mentions, more than 75 bright ideas / companies tracked by the US government, but the harsh reality is that when you read about these batteries, the promoters of them only tell you about the good aspects, not their flaws. We have been waiting for decades for better batteries. The only truly great breakthrough has been Lithium Ion, and as the article says, it will be a long time, probably not until closer to 2030, before that will change, if ever (because Lithium Ion will keep improving).

  37. #37

    Default

    I think electric cars, and battery tech, are already improving at a fine pace. Consider the internal combustion engine has been around for over a century and they really only started improving their "batteries" (i.e. fuel efficiency) in the latter part of the century.

  38. #38
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    4,332

    Default

    I wonder if the grid, say in Ontario can take it, plus the cost to charge, yikes!

  39. #39

    Default

    Some talk that the next Nissan leaf may massively undercut the Chevy Bolt and Model X on price:

    http://dailysunknoxville.com/next-ge...rice/920014787

    By now, you would have heard of Renault’s plan to release an $8,000 electric vehicle in China and its collaboration with Nissan to share the same electric car platform for the upcoming Leaf/Zoe.

    But, wait. There’s more. Mitsubishi is reported to be joining in on this platform sharing and it is slated to get its own electric car based on this new platform.

    This platform sharing will greatly benefit Nissan as the automaker would be able to reduce the pricing of the future Leaf to about 2 million yen ($17,000), or 20 percent lower than it’s current base price.

    In the US, that would be about $24,500 or $17,000, after federal credit cut, and it would be lower than the current $30,680 MSRP for the entry level 30kWh Leaf, despite the assumption that the next-gen Leaf will be coming with a high base capacity battery for that price.
    Looks a lot nicer than the current leaf:

    Last edited by moahunter; 21-12-2016 at 08:39 AM.

  40. #40
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,547

    Default Tesla Passes Ford in Market Valuation

    Ford, which reported net income over the last five years totaling $26 billion, towers over Tesla on most metrics. Tesla lost $2.3 billion during the same five-year span. Revenue was $151.8 billion last year for Ford, compared with Tesla’s $7 billion.Tesla sold about 40,697 vehicles in the U.S. last year, according to registration data compiled by IHS Markit. Ford delivers that many F-Series trucks about every three weeks.

    But Tesla has long been valued like a technology stock, in part because of what Kallo called Musk’s “star power.” Also the CEO of rocket manufacturer SpaceX, which has grand plans to colonize Mars, Musk has demonstrated his pull on Wall Street. He’s raised about $8 billion from equity and debt offerings since 2010, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...livers-model-3

    Some people compare Elon Musk to Steve Jobs. But keep in mind that Jobs failed in his first go round with Apple.

  41. #41

    Default

    ^its really hard to understand what is going on there. With revenues of only $7b, I don't get how Tesla is going to turn a decent net profit anytime soon. Of course, I could be wrong, maybe the model 3 will be more profitable than the S, maybe the gigafactory will change the industry. Then again, maybe those maybes won't happen.

    And just to rub it in, Ford yesterday, GM today:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tesla-gm-ford-1.4054630

    A day after doing the same to Ford, Tesla Motors overtook GM to become the most value valuable car company in the U.S. by market value on Tuesday.

    Tesla shares gained more than one per cent on the Nasdaq on Tuesday, changing hands at just over $300 US a share. That gives the company a total value of $52.7 billion.

    That's more than GM's $49.6 billion valuation. Tesla chief executive Elon Musk says he expects the company to sell 500,000 cars next year. GM, meanwhile, sold more than 20 times that many last year.

    "If you look at the different auto companies on paper, it does seem a bit proposterous, where Tesla is at this moment, versus some of the more established auto companies," Jessica Caldwell, director of industry analysis with automotive research firm Edmunds, said in an interview with CBC's On The Money on Monday.
    Last edited by moahunter; 04-04-2017 at 10:39 AM.

  42. #42
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1,662

    Default

    But Tesla has long been valued like a technology stock
    That is key really. Over valuated like x, y, z tech/social media companies.

  43. #43

    Default

    Interesting article:

    Electric truck - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_truck


    Recent news:

    Elon Musk unveils Tesla electric truck – and a surprise new sports car | Technology | The Guardian

    https://www.theguardian.com/technolo...s-car-surprise

  44. #44

    Default

    Hype Meets Reality as Electric Car Dreams Run Into Metal Crunch
    By Elisabeth Behrmann, Jack Farchy and Sam Dodge
    January 11, 2018

    Excerpt:

    "When BMW AG revealed it was designing electric versions of its X3 SUV and Mini, the going rate for 21 kilograms of cobalt—the amount of the metal needed to power typical car batteries—was under $600.

    Only 16 months later, the price tag is approaching $1,700 and climbing by the day.

    For carmakers vying to fill their fleets with electric vehicles, the spike has been a rude awakening as to how much their success is riding on the scarce silvery-blue mineral found predominantly in one of the world’s most corrupt and underdeveloped countries. ..."


    "There’s also another ethical obstacle to negotiate. The African nation produces more than 60 percent of the world’s cobalt, a fifth of which is drawn out by artisanal miners who work with their hands — some of whom are children. The country is also planning to double its tax on the metal. ..."

    "If each of the billion cars on the road were replaced today with a Tesla Model X, 14 million tonnes of cobalt would be needed—twice global reserves. Even a more realistic scenario for people to drive 30 million electric cars by 2030 requires output to be more than trebled,..."

    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2...alt-batteries/
    Last edited by KC; 13-01-2018 at 09:28 PM.

  45. #45

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    "The African nation produces more than 60 percent of the world’s cobalt, a fifth of which is drawn out by artisanal miners who work with their hands — some of whom are children. "
    This is not the first I have heard about this. Kids are used in these mines to crawl through holes and caves too small for grown men to enter.

    Children are being forced to work in slave conditions in dangerous mines just so we can have more (and bigger) batteries for our electronics. This is an ethical issue that everybody should be up in arms about.

  46. #46
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,464

    Default

    Ford investing $11bn in electrics/hybrids.
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-42689637
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  47. #47

    Default

    ^Not surprising. The cross over into regular gasoline engines is interesting as well, so even if doesn't produce pure electric vehicles like they expect (16), will have value for Ford. In the new RAM trucks, there is a simple hybrid system as standard, which I think will have a pretty big impact on city driving (smoother auto shutoff, regen braking, power boost) with a lithium ion battery powering an MGU:

    https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/2...n-for-detroit/

    The hybrid system is used in both the V6 and V8, as is an eight-speed automatic. It will be standard on the V6 but optional on the V8.

    That system probably works like the Motor Generator Unit in the 2018 Wrangler, which FCA calls “eTorque,” which basically provides the truck with a boost by feeding power from a 48 volt battery to the powertrain through the engine’s drive belts.

    The MGU is installed where an alternator would typically be, acting to both utilize the vehicle’s battery for propulsion and feed power back into it during regenerative braking.

    In theory, the practical benefits of such a system would be improved fuel economy and seamless start/stop events when the truck shuts itself down at a stoplight. There’s still a regular separate starter motor that will crank the truck to life during cold starts, but the MGU will be what turns the truck back on when it automatically shuts off under normal operation.
    Its surprising Ford is releasing an F150 diesel, I guess they developed that before the VW scandal. I think diesel is dead now, hybrid offers similar fuel efficiency (although more in city rather than highway), but much cleaner emissions.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-01-2018 at 10:53 AM.

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,447

    Default

    ^Diesels that actually meet current emissions standards without cheating aren't that bad. I would go for the hybrid over the diesel at the same price though.


    On batteries, there are alternatives to cobalt oxides for battery cathodes, including abundant materials like iron phosphate.

  49. #49

    Default

    ^although the Ford Diesel is only a couple of MPG better than the gasoline variant - I guess the attraction is the truck torque for pulling. I think the benefits of diesels have mostly been replicated by gasoline engines now. At the end of the day, Diesel is fundamentally a less refined / more dirty fuel if you look beyond just CO2.

  50. #50

    Default

    There's more energy in a litre of diesel than there is in a litre of gasoline, so there's all sorts of cases where diesel outperforms gas.

    Also, North American diesel isn't the same as diesel in Europe, theirs is a lot more refined than ours, but Big Auto has kept North America from keeping in step through intense lobbying.

    Plus biodiesel, which is a lot simpler to run existing infrastructure on than switching a gas engine over to ethanol.

    Diesel forms the backbone of the transportation industry & won't be going anywhere for a while. I'd have thought you'd know this what with it being the justification for Canadian governments recently subsidizing the construction of the first new diesel plant in decades. That's the sort of O&G corporate welfare you're normally such a strident advocate of...
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Diesel forms the backbone of the transportation industry & won't be going anywhere for a while. I'd have thought you'd know this what with it being the justification for Canadian governments recently subsidizing the construction of the first new diesel plant in decades. That's the sort of O&G corporate welfare you're normally such a strident advocate of...
    Please provide a source, I never supported any government subsidy to industry, including the diesel refinery, or any other - unlike you, I think government should stay out of business beyond enforcing legislation / consumer protection, and focus on social issues.

  52. #52
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  53. #53

    Default

    ^where did I say I supported that subsidy? Just more lies from you.

  54. #54

    Default

    Let's not really start calling people liars, what with your own terrible affinity for inventing crap & then attributing it to one of your opponents in the debate.

    You've shown time & time again that you're all for subsidies both direct & indirect to the oil & gas industry & indicated that the health of the energy industry is more important than human rights to you. So while you may have never directly approved of this specific subsidy, your overall ethos is completely aligned with it.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  55. #55

    Default

    ^So, I take it, you haven't been able to show one example where I called for government to subsidize oil and gas. Your statement was false. Unlike you, I have a very clear belief system on this - government is for society / social issues / legislation / rules. It is not to try and change how business is done, or decide where it is competitive or should invest - when government starts to try do that, like it is trying to do now with the climate plans, it will end very badly for all of us, including this diesel refinery (which the PC's should never have invested in), which is a boondoggle at best.

  56. #56

    Default

    You're against the Carbon Tax no? Before the tax went in businesses & consumers didn't have to pay for the environmental consequences for their use of carbon, which is an indirect subsidy.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  57. #57

    Default

    ^I don't agree carbon is a pollutant, but if that was a given and our major competitors faced the same disadvantage (they don't today), then sure, have a carbon tax, but it should be revenue neutral then (like B.C.'s was supposed to be), reduce corporate or individual taxes. No need for a big government spending machine on green pick winner projects like the NDP have created.

  58. #58

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^I don't agree carbon is a pollutant
    Science disagrees, but given your fondness for conservative fairy tales I can see where this is going. Given that you went full nutter right outta the gate I don't see much point in continuing the debate with someone who's incapable of accepting facts. How do you debate or discuss when one party openly disregards fundamental truths & inserts his own feelings in lieu of scientific consensus? Who needs science when you've got gut feelings?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  59. #59

    Default

    Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.

  60. #60

    Default

    I now feel twice as validated with both your top minds on the other side of the debate.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MrOilers View Post
    Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant.
    We would all be dead without it, carbon is the building block of all life, and carbon dioxide is the fuel of plants / base of the food chain. Something like NOX and particulates though, which diesel engines produces far more of than Gasoline, is without question a pollutant.

  62. #62

    Default

    Carbon dioxide has existed in concentrations much higher than what exists in our atmosphere before. Even if the global atmospheric amount of carbon dioxide was ten times higher than it is today, it would still not be near any toxic level for human health.

  63. #63

    Default

    CO2 level is now about 400.
    Indoor environments are usually ventilated to maintain below 1000 or so; higher than that begins to affect cognitive function.

    Outdoor CO levels have to be well below the target indoor level for ventilation to work.
    There can only be one.

  64. #64

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    Indoor environments are usually ventilated to maintain below 1000 or so
    That is true. Occupational limit is 5000 ppm.

  65. #65
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,464

    Default

    Here's the thing that doesn't seem to stack up. Diesel, being a less refined product than gas, is a higher price at the pump. It used to be that diesel was always considerably less than gas. What changed?
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  66. #66
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,447

    Default

    ^ Not that much less refined any more with the need to remove most of the sulfur. The price reflects the higher inherent value due to the higher energy content.

  67. #67

    Default

    In a barrel of crude there's a specific fraction that's gasoline and another that's diesel/kerosene, if you consume a different fraction then whatever you use more of will cost more. There are more diesel truck today than there were 15 years ago when diesel was sold at a discount.
    There can only be one.

  68. #68
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,464

    Default

    ^ ^^ Thanks.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  69. #69
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,447

    Default

    ^^That was true when oil refining was just a fractional distillation process, but the addition of cracking and reforming processes allows the gasoline:diesel ratio to be varied to a certain extent by the choice of refining method.

  70. #70

    Default

    That's true, but the additional processes are an added cost and complexity so any additional diesel above that amount will be more expensive to produce. It won't be made if the refiner can't make a profit.

    So if demand is for more diesel than the natural fraction allows then all diesel will be sold at a price that permits profits on the additional processes.
    There can only be one.

  71. #71

    Default

    Oddly enough, the even more refined & heavily processed diesel in Europe is almost always cheaper per litre than gas, to the point my wife actually questioned me as we were driving past a station before xmas.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  72. #72

    Default

    ^its because they tax it less there, because its supposedly greener (even though its not), and because they want to subsidize farmers and similar.

  73. #73

    Default

    ^Interesting.

    I wonder if there are taxes that make up the difference, either here or there.

    I would guess that the marginal cost of the processes would get swamped by taxes in a places where taxes bring fuel cost up to more than twice what we pay.
    There can only be one.

  74. #74

    Default

    ^they have an interesting system in New Zealand (farming economy). Diesel and Gasoline look about the same at the pump, or slightly cheaper for diesel, but you have to pay a tax on a per km basis if you use diesel on the road (through your vehicle registration). So gasoline is fuel taxed at pump, but diesel is not. The logic there is that they don't want to tax farmers for using the diesel off road. In Canada you can buy colored or marked fuel if you want to use off road, which is a similar concept, but in reverse.

    In Europe they are starting to regret the subsidies they have given to diesel at the pump as it has caused quite bad localized pollution in cities like London and Paris.
    Last edited by moahunter; 16-01-2018 at 08:25 AM.

  75. #75

    Default

    ^Leading in a round-about way to actually dealing with congestion, reducing car traffic and favouring public transit and non-motorized options. The announced blanket bans on internal combustion engines is the pendulum swinging too far and I suspect that most will be walked back at least to have some exceptions but a lot of good things are happening in cities as a result of today's diesel pollution.
    There can only be one.

  76. #76

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^its because they tax it less there, because its supposedly greener (even though its not), and because they want to subsidize farmers and similar.
    The difference (usually 2SEK) is more than the tax difference, which is 8 euro cents (or about .8SEK). I was curious about it, so I asked my car nut FIL about it. Cars, the energy industry & taxes are the three things we've got enough common ground on to make the language barrier bearable, so we tend to talk about those things whenever I visit.

    Also the tax on fuel is offset by higher annual taxes on the vehicles themselves, which are 233% higher than those of gas vehicles (and infinitely higher than electric vehicles for the first 5 years, as they're exempt).
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  77. #77

    Default UK government wrong to subsidise diesel, says former minister

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^Leading in a round-about way to actually dealing with congestion, reducing car traffic and favouring public transit and non-motorized options. The announced blanket bans on internal combustion engines is the pendulum swinging too far and I suspect that most will be walked back at least to have some exceptions but a lot of good things are happening in cities as a result of today's diesel pollution.
    There was a lot of talk about it after the VW scandal. Interestingly VW are now trying to redeem themselves by focusing on electric.

    https://www.theguardian.com/business...ormer-minister

    Gordon Brown introduced tax breaks for diesel cars as the UK chancellor in 2001 because they emit less CO2 than petrol-powered cars, but it is now known that they emit other harmful pollutants, known as nitrogen oxides.

    Speaking on Radio 4’s Today programme, Drayson, who was science minister from 2008-10 in Brown’s government, admitted: “We did get it wrong. We now have a much better understanding than we did just a few years ago of what are the health effects of the products of diesel cars and they are literally killing people so it’s clear that in retrospect that was the wrong policy.”

    He said that because about half of cars on the road in the UK and Europe are diesels, action must be taken quickly. He urged the car industry to accelerate the development of electric vehicles.

  78. #78

    Default

    I would buy an electric car if I didn't live in Alberta. Alberta refuses to, and probably never will offer gov't incentives on purchasing hybrids and electric cars because money is made with oil here...

    There was a panel on the subject where a remark was made that said "The only reason to [provide a subsidy] is to reduce emissions". Well duh! But of course introducing the carbon tax will work right?

    Other provinces gives incentives. Alberta is just being greedy. It's all about the money of course.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •