News, Electric Car, NY Man Drives to Florida and Back, Spends $0 (mpg, heating)

[CAllenDoudna]

Originally Posted by NJBest

Which companies currently offer their customers fuel for the life of their car? Even with PR?

I would imagine most companies would do that if you are willing to buy one car for the price of two or three cars.

[CAllenDoudna]

Originally Posted by OpenD

enjoying driving a quiet, non-polluting car, with the convenience of being able to "fill up" at home in their own garage.

Non polluting? Do you have ANY idea how electricity is generated? Most electricity is generated by burning coal. The coal boils water to produce steam. The steam powers a turbine that rotates a magnet within a coil of wires. This causes the magnetic lines of flux to change and that induces electrical current to flow in the wires.

Now when the coal is mined there's quite a dirty mess to clean up--but that's how we get most of our electricity. Also, as the coal is burned it produces Carbon Dioxide--perhaps you have heard about CO2, greenhouse gasses, ect. But that's how we get most of our electricity.

Many plants do not burn coal; they burn natural gas. Natural gas is produced by fracking. Perhaps you have heard about that. But that is the main alternative to coal. Burning natural gas also produces CO2.

The third most common way to produce electricity is to boil the water with the heat given off by nuclear reactions. You have no doubt heard about radioactive waste.

These three methods generate 90% of the electricity we use. Most of the rest is generated by having falling water turn the turbine. Nearly all of that is created by damming a river and we've pretty much dammed the last river we can dam even without the Environmentalists protesting that we're destroying natural habitat by flooding the land behind the dam and altering the silt and other factors in the river below the dam. Wind and solar are fickle and unreliable and all such Alternative Energy only accounts for 3% of all the electricity we use and Environmentalists are complaining about about unsightly wind farms and solar farms and how these also harm the Environment.

We cannot produce electricity without somehow destroying the Environment.

Enjoy your non-polluting electric car.

[Merc63]

Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna

Non polluting? Do you have ANY idea how electricity is generated? Most electricity is generated by burning coal. The coal boils water to produce steam. The steam powers a turbine that rotates a magnet within a coil of wires. This causes the magnetic lines of flux to change and that induces electrical current to flow in the wires.

Now when the coal is mined there's quite a dirty mess to clean up--but that's how we get most of our electricity. Also, as the coal is burned it produces Carbon Dioxide--perhaps you have heard about CO2, greenhouse gasses, ect. But that's how we get most of our electricity.

Many plants do not burn coal; they burn natural gas. Natural gas is produced by fracking. Perhaps you have heard about that. But that is the main alternative to coal. Burning natural gas also produces CO2.

The third most common way to produce electricity is to boil the water with the heat given off by nuclear reactions. You have no doubt heard about radioactive waste.

These three methods generate 90% of the electricity we use. Most of the rest is generated by having falling water turn the turbine. Nearly all of that is created by damming a river and we've pretty much dammed the last river we can dam even without the Environmentalists protesting that we're destroying natural habitat by flooding the land behind the dam and altering the silt and other factors in the river below the dam. Wind and solar are fickle and unreliable and all such Alternative Energy only accounts for 3% of all the electricity we use and Environmentalists are complaining about about unsightly wind farms and solar farms and how these also harm the Environment.

We cannot produce electricity without somehow destroying the Environment.

Enjoy your non-polluting electric car.

So my solar panels and wind farm generated electricity, and of course, hydroelectric power in the PNW is polluting?

Here's the basic facts: even the worst coal plants are cleaner than the cleanest ICE cars (as a single central pollution generator that's required to be clean is cleaner than a million individual point sources getting dirtier all the time), and with government regulations making them cleaner every year, and ICE cars getting dirtier every year you use them, EVs are an order of magnitude cleaner than gasoline powered cars ('cause you know drilling for, and refining oil is so goddamn clean as is burning it, you twit). And EV scanb take advantage of any new developments in electricity production (like solar and wind farms and wave, and hydro) while gas cars are tied to petroleum and pretty much dirty for life.

Enjoy your filthy petrol car.

[CAllenDoudna]

Originally Posted by Merc63

So my solar panels and wind farm generated electricity, and of course, hydroelectric power in the PNW is polluting?

You realize that batteries wear out after a few years and then they are toxic waste that is quite expenssive to dispose of, don't you?

Wind turbines kill birds--or haven't you heard about that? And anybody with an ounce of sense realizes that wind is a fickle thing that sometimes blows and sometimes doesn't and it may be 5 miles and hour one day and 50 miles an hour the next. Surely you realize these will generate vastly differing amounts of electricity, do you not? Have you not heard that wind farms are banned from many otherwise suitable locations because people find them so unsightly? The Kennedys, for instance, banned a windfarm near Martha's Vineyard because it would ruin a view they enjoyed.

Solar farms block sunlight from reaching green plants and so lessen their ability to scrub CO2 from the air.

I explained the objections to hydroelectric power: habitat on land is flooded and destroyed behind the dam, and in front of the dam the natural rhythums caused by the rising and falling of the river disrupt habitat as does the blockage of silt that once washed down and brought nutients to the land downstream. You just try proposing another dam and see what sort of objections the Environmental community raises. Anyway, we've pretty much dammed all the locations favorable to damming so hydro power is a dead end.

I'm actually quite a fan of Alternative Energy, but anybody who thinks there aren't some drawbacks--serious ones--has only heard about the candy and ice cream and not the tummy ache that follows.

[CAllenDoudna]

Originally Posted by Merc63

Here's the basic facts: even the worst coal plants are cleaner than the cleanest ICE cars (as a single central pollution generator that's required to be clean is cleaner than a million individual point sources getting dirtier all the time), and with government regulations making them cleaner every year, and ICE cars getting dirtier every year you use them, EVs are an order of magnitude cleaner than gasoline powered cars ('cause you know drilling for, and refining oil is so goddamn clean as is burning it, you twit). And EV scanb take advantage of any new developments in electricity production (like solar and wind farms and wave, and hydro) while gas cars are tied to petroleum and pretty much dirty for life.

Enjoy your filthy petrol car.

Most of the time I have ridden a bicycle. If it was cold I wore a coat. If it rained I got wet. Bought a rain coat but never used it.

I was a big fan of electric cars back in the 60s and 70s--but they have a LOT of problems. Personally, I think a compressed air vehicle would be far better. Have you ever used pneumatic tools? They're reliable and last forever.

The electric car has changed little from what it was in the 60s and 70s. Don't forget we had an energy crisis in 1973-1974 and the price of gas shot up from 30 cents a gallon to 80 cents a gallon before falling back down to 60 cents a gallon. ($3 an hour was a pretty common wage back then so the price was comparable to what we're paying now.) Don't you think we would have switched to electrics at that time if they were practical? A lot of people wanted them. Here we are 40 years later and you'd think the roads would be flooded with them by now. A range of 50 miles? (Less than that in winter; cold saps a battery.) That would barely get you to the next town down the road and back around here--and it might not even do that. When I was living in Hagarstown, Maryland people would drive 80 miles and more to DC and back every day because the jobs paid better there.

Good luck with your electric car. Not many people buy them.

[Mathguy]

Originally Posted by NHDave

The driver didn't pay for recharges but someone did, I fail to see how this is any different than someone making the same trip in a normal car and arranging for other people to buy his fuel.

Agreed. Can we now start a thread about it getting infinite miles per gallon?

Seriously though, I like electric cars, especially Tesla.

The fact that Obama & friends gave loan guarantees to Fisker under the guise of green energy, a foreign company no less.....because they happened to bribe errrr...give big campaign contributions was a complete stab in the back to a great US company trying to reach profitability by getting sales volume.

Beware green energy initiatives....many of them are just kickbacks supporting inferior tech that actually harms the guys building the better mousetrap.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna

Non polluting? Do you have ANY idea how electricity is generated?

Your sarcasm is misplaced. This isn't our first rodeo, and you're a late arrival to this one. In fact we've already challenged your misinformation, rebutted your arguments, answered all your questions and more in previous threads, before you were even a member here.

But to start this remedial review on the right keel, I'll repeat my original statement, which is absolutely and undeniably true... Electric vehicles are inherently clean and do not create air pollution... not even the ones that are powered by onboard hydrogen fuel cells. Charge them from non-polluting, renewable energy sources and the cycle will be completely clean.

Most electricity is generated by burning coal.

To be accurate, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) says that 39% of our electricity was generated by coal fired plants last year.

Now when the coal is mined there's quite a dirty mess to clean up--but that's how we get most of our electricity. (Well, 39% anyway) Also, as the coal is burned it produces Carbon Dioxide--perhaps you have heard about CO2, greenhouse gasses, ect. (sic) But that's how we get most of our electricity. (Well, 39% anyway)

Yes, and it's unfortunate that we can't just wave a wand and replace all fossil fuel burning plants with renewable energy sources overnight, but we can't. But even so, charging up EVs from a distant coal-burning power plant is still a large net gain in air pollution over using gasoline or diesel fuel in ICE (internal combustion engine) powered vehicles. One obvious area of gain is that a single large exhaust pipe is far easier to scrub and control and monitor than tens of thousands of small ones.

So the amount of CO2 produced per mile driven is far less with an EV, and currently also costs only about half as much as buying gas. And we expect that whatever amount of CO2 is currently being produced by fossil fuel generation can be reduced even further with the latest CO2 sequestration (capture & storage) technology being piloted at the new coal burning Boundary Dam Project in Saskatchewan, Canada. The expectation is that 90% of the CO2 produced by the plant will be captured, compressed, and pumped deep into the earth for permanent storage. I think that will help buy us a little time, and if the technology works as planned, it can probably be retrofitted to some existing plants.

Many plants do not burn coal; they burn natural gas. Natural gas is produced by fracking. Perhaps you have heard about that. But that is the main alternative to coal. Burning natural gas also produces CO2.

Yep. Natural gas generation of electricity is 27% of the US total, according to the EIA. It has been looked at as a great transitional fuel to help us get us weaned off coal while we ramp up the renewable resources, because it is cleaner and gives off less CO2 in use than coal or oil do. Unfortunately we're now discovering that fracking for natural gas has some unintended consequences, such as the hundreds of earthquakes now hitting Oklahoma in rapid succession. So it isn't quite the heroic savior it was once thought to be, and the market prices have proven to be quite volatile.

The third most common way to produce electricity is to boil the water with the heat given off by nuclear reactions. You have no doubt heard about radioactive waste.

Yuppers, why hecky darn, I shorely do, Mister. Yup, yup, yup. Matter of fact, one of my close personal friends, a college professor and published author, is one of the leading experts in the world on dealing with nuclear waste. So maybe it's time you just dropped the arrogant conceit that you know better than any else here.

In the wake of the Fukushima disaster I have serious doubts we'll see any new reactor plants built in this country. I think getting all the permits and going through the review and approval process is too much of an uphill climb now. Just my opinion. Guess we better get cracking and develop our renewable energy resources, huh?.

These three methods generate 90% of the electricity we use.

Well, it's actually 85%, but apparently accuracy isn't important to you.

Most of the rest is generated by having falling water turn the turbine.

7% is hydropower, yes, and it's clean and cheap to produce. No CO2 being generated here. But due to wildlife and environmental concerns I don't see any new dams or hydro plants being built in the US, and we've even seen a push to decommission and remove existing dams in several places.

Wind and solar are fickle and unreliable and all such Alternative Energy only accounts for 3% of all the electricity we use

Actually, the EIA says it was up to 6% last year, with over 4% produced from wind energy alone. This year it will be higher. And next year even more so.

Environmentalists are complaining about about unsightly wind farms and solar farms and how these also harm the Environment. We cannot produce electricity without somehow destroying the Environment.

The "environmentalist" people working to reduce CO2 pollution are not the same "environmentalist" people who oppose wind farms and solar farms and apparently anything that changes anything. But the ones working to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere ultimately must win the debate, or otherwise we're cooked as a species. And soon, please!

Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna

You realize that batteries wear out after a few years and then they are toxic waste that is quite expenssive (sic) to dispose of, don't you?

Tesla's battery warranty is already 8 years, and emerging battery technology can be expected to push the envelope on that. And if you look at the plans for Tesla's new Giga battery factory you'll see that battery recycling is built into the process.

Wind turbines kill birds--or haven't you heard about that?

So do buildings which are absolutely motionless, or haven't you heard about that? The US Fish & Game Service says that buildings cause over a billion bird deaths a year. They're by far the largest cause of bird deaths we know of.

And anybody with an ounce of sense realizes that wind is a fickle thing that sometimes blows and sometimes doesn't and it may be 5 miles and hour one day and 50 miles an hour the next. Surely you realize these will generate vastly differing amounts of electricity, do you not?

But anyone who studies the facts knows that wind power makes a good complement to solar power because wind is often strongest at night, when solar power is not producing, so they tend to balance each other. Yes, technically we still need the conventional plants to even out the bumps and fill in the gaps, but workable power storage solutions could eliminate those, and storage technology is a hot area for current R&D.

Have you not heard that wind farms are banned from many otherwise suitable locations because people find them so unsightly? The Kennedys, for instance, banned a windfarm near Martha's Vineyard because it would ruin a view they enjoyed.

Ripping the tops off mountains to extract coal is unisghtly too, as are the oil derricks and flares and settling ponds and pipelines associated with oil and gas production, and disposing of pet-coke and coal ash are problematic, and oil spills have horrendous effects, so ultimately the question is should our national energy policy be set by wealthy people who don't want the view out their windows to change just to produce clean electricity, and who are probably earning money on fossil fuel investments anyway?

Solar farms block sunlight from reaching green plants and so lessen their ability to scrub CO2 from the air.

But co-cropping with solar banks is emerging as a surprisingly viable agricultural strategy, as it turn out that a lot of light bounces around under the PV panels or reflector panels, allowing all kinds of useful crops to grow. Wind turbines have always co-existed well with ranching. And new wind turbine designs are emerging that are less visually intrusive, quieter, and more wildlife friendly than in the past. You can't keep judging alternative energy by how it was 20 years ago. There have been a lot of technological advances recently.

I'm actually quite a fan of Alternative Energy, but anybody who thinks there aren't some drawbacks--serious ones--has only heard about the candy and ice cream and not the tummy ache that follows.

The biggest drawback I see is that we can't seem to deploy them fast enough.

Originally Posted by CAllenDoudna

I was a big fan of electric cars back in the 60s and 70s--but they have a LOT of problems. The electric car has changed little from what it was in the 60s and 70s.

Stop, think... what was your radio like back in the 60s and 70s? How about your phone? And how about now?

Yep, the astonishing evolution of personal electronics since then is paralleled by the evolution of today's computer controlled Electric Vehicles. You can't be judging them by how it was 20 years ago, or even 10 years ago. Or even 5.

As Matthew Inman, cartoonist for The Oatmeal puts it, driving a Tesla S is like driving a rocket ship. Or to be perfectly accurate, he calls his Tesla an "Intergalactic SpaceBoat of Light and Wonder" in his entertaining and somewhat NSFW look at the car that Consumer's Union called the best automobile they have ever tested.

What it's like to own a Tesla Model S - A cartoonist's review of his magical space car - The Oatmeal

[CAllenDoudna]

Originally Posted by OpenD

Your sarcasm is misplaced. This isn't our first rodeo, and you're a late arrival to this one. In fact we've already challenged your misinformation, rebutted your arguments, answered all your questions and more in previous threads, before you were even a member here.


Stop, think... what was your radio like back in the 60s and 70s? How about your phone? And how about now?

Yep, the astonishing evolution of personal electronics since then is paralleled by the evolution of today's computer controlled Electric Vehicles. You can't be judging them by how it was 20 years ago.

Ah, OpenD! What a tremendous corrector of misinformation you are! I stand flogged, reprimanded, and put in my place!

Instead of saying that we get most of our electricity from coal I should have said that we get more electricity from coal than from any other source. We get a third more electricity from coal than from natural gas. I stand corrected. In all other points I see we are in agreement on coal, natural gas, and nuclear power except that I gave the total amount of electricity produced by these three at 90% and you have corrected me by pointing out that it is actually 85%. All that big long post of yours boils down to a difference of 5%.

Oh, wait: You did say something about the enormous advances in electric cars of today over what they were in the 1960s and 1970s. Ah yes! Back then they had a range of 25 miles whereas today they have a range of 50 miles. I might point out that gasoline powered cars back then got 15 miles to the gallon and today they get 30 miles to the gallon. But of course the original post was about the Tesla that will go a little over 200 miles on a charge. That is indeed a tremendous advance over the 1967 Amitron that could only go 150 miles on a charge.

Amitron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://retrothing.typepad.com/photos...itronboots.jpg

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by NJBest

Because it's only something you could do with the Tesla. Who else offers to pay your way? Ford? Honda?

If too many people start doing this, no one will be offering to pay their way. He got away with stealing electricity someone else paid for. If he stopped at hotels that offered recharging, then he paid for it.

[Ivorytickler]

Originally Posted by Mathguy

Agreed. Can we now start a thread about it getting infinite miles per gallon?

Seriously though, I like electric cars, especially Tesla.

The fact that Obama & friends gave loan guarantees to Fisker under the guise of green energy, a foreign company no less.....because they happened to bribe errrr...give big campaign contributions was a complete stab in the back to a great US company trying to reach profitability by getting sales volume.

Beware green energy initiatives....many of them are just kickbacks supporting inferior tech that actually harms the guys building the better mousetrap.

I'd like to see a true cost analysis. Cost of the vehicle, cost of generating the electricity for said vehicle and cost of disposal of the batteries after the car is no longer in service. I'm not convinced that this is either cost effective or environmentally effective. Electricity is only clean energy if it's generated as clean energy. If it's generated from coal, you have the mining industry to consider and what it does to the environment. If it's nuclear, you have to consider the cost of nuclear waste. I'm not convinced that electric is the way to go.