Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure about the Tesla Model 3, but I just bought a used 2013 Model S 85 that had 60K miles on it. The original rated range was 265 miles (estimated 73 usage kWh), it now shows 256 miles when fully charged (~3.4% battery degradation). Based on our driving (50% driving 75mph and 50% driving at ~40mph in congested traffic with HVAC on) we see about 228 miles of range when full.
.
Thanks for that info-- that's the sort of thing that is very difficult to find in the advertising & popular trade reviews of EVs.
265 mi/73 kW-hr = 3.62 mi/kWhr @ $0.15/kW-hr (Here in WI) that's costs 0.15 / 3.62 = $0.04/mi. An ICE vehicle getting 20mpg & gas @ $2/gal would cost $0.10/ mi.
As I recall, one of the hybrids quoted 150 mi range on 30kW battery. 30kW/150 mi...$0.15 / 5= $0.03/ mi.
Not bad.
But a 4kW solar array getting 4hr/d of good sun (here in WI) would generate 16 kW/d. 73kW/ 16 kw/d = 4.5 days of generation to "fill the tank."
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 03-06-2019 at 05:05 AM..
QED. Thank you. EVs fill a certain niche. Cross country driving is not one of them. It can be done, but then, I suppose you could also use a pogo stick to do it if you had a mind to.
There's nothing niche about a use case acceptable to the majority -- like commuting to work. Cross country driving is too niche for it to make sense for most vehicle purchasers to consider.
All transportation methods are, by definition, 'sub-optimal'.
What fascinates me is why some people are so resentful and threatened by electric cars...
I mean, I don't own one, but I cannot for the life of me figure out why I should be all bent out of shape over their mere existence. Weird.
a) Maximum means The Most. Minimum means The Least. Optimum means The Best (as in best compromise between maximum & minimum.) We should be coming to the conclusion here that no single vehicle fills all needs: you wouldn't buy a Peterbilt tractor because you have one load of household furniture to move across country one time when your main use of a vehicle would be to commute 10 miles to work on a daily basis, nor would you buy an EV when you mainly need to pick up 20 50# sacks of feed at the feed store 20 miles away in town once a week or drive salt blocks & hay out to the pastures everyday during the winter.
b) I don't think anybody is objecting to EVs in principle. Some of us see The Auto Makers shifting to an "EV Only" paradigm based on poorly thought out govt incentives, using falsified pseudo science (is that redundant?) to "prove" their case. If you read the trade papers, they seem to be forcing this on us against our wills. Cf- self driving cars--Who asked for them? Who wants them?
b) I don't think anybody is objecting to EVs in principle. Some of us see The Auto Makers shifting to an "EV Only" paradigm based on poorly thought out govt incentives, using falsified pseudo science (is that redundant?) to "prove" their case. If you read the trade papers, they seem to be forcing this on us against our wills. Cf- self driving cars--Who asked for them? Who wants them?
I don't really think this is the case. Even the big elephant in the room, Tesla, knows it cannot rely on government incentives in the long run. The incentives are well meaning, but not sustainable in the long run -- and this is no secret to automakers.
Also, it's not so much about falsified pseudo science as it is about actual true science. I know you're considering behavioral science of engaging EVs in their use in automated service vehicles. But I don't think automakers really care about that. They're focusing on the well accepted scientific fact that emissions gasses are bad for the environment. So even the science is well thought through. (yes, I know that there are idiots that will ignore this and focus on the behavioral science -- but those idiots are few and far between).
...They're focusing on the well accepted scientific fact that emissions gasses are bad for the environment.....).
Start with false assumptions and you're doomed to come to false conclusions.
AGW is a poor theory that relies uniquely on computer models for its "evidence." Every single one of its predictions have proven over time to be well out of the range of error making it useless as a theory.
The only environmental harm done from burning fossil fuel was the problem of acid rain in past decades, handled by discontinuing use of high- sulfur coal & Diesel and adding scrubbers to coal burning plants. Problem solved. No need for further govt over- reach. We reached the point of diminishing returns from regulations long ago.
Some people with strong opinions are apparently ignorant of the "greening of the planet" over the past 40 years. This may well be due to increasing [co2] from dangerously low 280ppm to a more environmental friendly 410ppm. That level is expected to rise as oceans out-gas in their natural cycles.
You're a physicist., You must be familiar with "Fermi Solutions"-- those based on order of magnitude estimates of the involved factors. If you take the figure for known oil/coal reserves, figure how much Carbon (-->co2) that represents in moles and estimate the volume of the lower atmosphere, you'll see there's only enough to lift the atm [co2] to ~500ppm (assuming there is no increased photosynthesis or co2 sequestration in oceans). ...Then figure that co2 forcing goes up with doubling period of [co2], so temps go up less and less with increasing co2, meaning that even if we concede co2 is a major determinant of the planet's climate, it won't get out of hand as the political types contend.
We need not really discuss whether or not warming is good for the planet or not, but how many retirees do you know that move North? We should use the senses God gave us and don't believe all the unsubstantiated tripe in the popular press.
I don't really think this is the case. Even the big elephant in the room, Tesla, knows it cannot rely on government incentives in the long run. The incentives are well meaning, but not sustainable in the long run -- and this is no secret to automakers.
Also, it's not so much about falsified pseudo science as it is about actual true science. I know you're considering behavioral science of engaging EVs in their use in automated service vehicles. But I don't think automakers really care about that. They're focusing on the well accepted scientific fact that emissions gasses are bad for the environment. So even the science is well thought through. (yes, I know that there are idiots that will ignore this and focus on the behavioral science -- but those idiots are few and far between).
It would be refreshing for the public to focus on the science. Instead we have outbreaks of measles due to anti-vaxers, fights against clean technology like wind and solar by climate deniers, and even a third of Americans reject evolution in favor of Biblical creationism.
I don't think the idiots are few and far between. They now control many of the institutions we have put in place to advance our civilization using science and reason as the basis. Hopefully the next generation will be more enlightened.
Why don't EV's have small gasoline powered motors just to run a generator to recharge the battery, either while they are being driven, or to run when sitting in a parking lot somewhere? Wouldn't that solve the range and A/C, and heat problem?
Why don't EV's have small gasoline powered motors just to run a generator to recharge the battery, either while they are being driven, or to run when sitting in a parking lot somewhere? Wouldn't that solve the range and A/C, and heat problem?
Why don't EV's have small gasoline powered motors just to run a generator to recharge the battery, either while they are being driven, or to run when sitting in a parking lot somewhere? Wouldn't that solve the range and A/C, and heat problem?
2nd Law of Thermodynamics makes that inefficient.
In a hybrid, electric motors power the car at low speeds, and are shut off when standing still in stop & go traffic. This avoids the inefficiency of wasting fuel at idle. The ICE kicks on at higher speeds or if the batteries run low.
This set-up makes great sense if you do much big city commuting. I'm familiar with rush hour in Chicago or LA where a 10 mile trip can take an hour-- mostly sitting still on the road.
Anybody know what a hybrid costs? Is the money saved on gas worth it?
edit: just looked it up: Camry (for example) standard ICE ~$24G and hybrid ~ $28G. With fuel $2/gal, you'd have to save 2000 gal to break even. ICE gets ~30mpg (city) and Hybrid 50mpg-- a dif of 20mpg...A 20 mi commute (40 round trip) 250 x a year would be 10,000 miles/yr. That would use 333 gal of gas in the ICE, but only 200 for the hybrid, saving $266/yr....$4000/$266=15 yrs to pay for itself. ...Worth it???...Don't know about anyone else, but I just talked myself out of it as a wise choice.
Last edited by guidoLaMoto; 03-08-2019 at 08:56 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
