Tesla Car Charger???

[Besoeker]

What car do you drive that compares in power to a Tesla that gets 1,000 miles to a fill up?

I made no comparison the the Tesla power. That would be a bit silly IMHO. But who would drive a car that can go from 0-60 in under four seconds at a constant 55 mph?

Anyway, this a photograph of the speedometer/oddometer.

The 696 is the calculated remaining miles with the fuel left in the tank. The "B" 372 was how far I'd travelled since my last fill. And it isn't a huge fuel tank - 14 and a bit Imperial gallons.
The car is a 2.2 litre diesel five seater saloon. Acceleration wouldn't set your pants on fire but top speed is about 130 mph which, considering that the maximum speed limit here in UK is 70mph, is plenty fast enough. Especially as our motorways are festooned with fixed speed cameras and mobile units can be anywhere. Automatic fines are imposed if you get flashed.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Tesla is a fine car. And there are other more affordable and quite practical EVs. If you have a known fixed commute to and from work or for shopping, an EV would cost less to run than a conventional ICE vehicle. I just don't like the hype that sometimes gets put about.

 

[JFletcher]

So I put a 50 amp conductor with a 50 am overcurrent protective device which means the unit probably draws 40 amps or so. Now charge the car for 7 hours-- home owner states that what it takes for a full charge - and that is a lot of energy and money to charge that vehicle.

I read an interesting article that stated how the power company's are really worried about the load on their system from EV's.

40A x 240V = 9.6kw x 7hr x $0.10kw/hr = $6.72. Gas is about 1/4th of that per gallon right now. Guessing EV cars are getting ~ 45mpg... so if the Tesla has a range of >180 miles on a 7 hr charge, it comes out ahead of gas, and does better the higher gas prices get.... until you have to replace the batteries anyway.

eta: read their batteries get ~285mi/85kw charge, so you'd need 10.5kw/hr x 8hrs to get a full charge; ~45A. That's about $8/charge. Counting charging losses, it still comes out ahead of gas.

EVs would be mainly charged at night when the grid loading is the lowest. But yeah, we need way more electrical infrastructure if a significant portion of vehicles become electric.

I read an interesting article about aluminum battery tech; once they are perfected, battery charge times will drop, life cycle will increase.

 

[GoldDigger]

...
...

I read an interesting article about aluminum battery tech; once they are perfected, battery charge times will drop, life cycle will increase.

Unfortunately there are always articles about new battery tech, and no more than 1 out of 10 will ever get to the stage that full scale tests are done, let alone make it into routine operation.

 

[Dennis Alwon]

EVs would be mainly charged at night when the grid loading is the lowest. But yeah, we need way more electrical infrastructure if a significant portion of vehicles become electric.

Yes it would be charged at night. Think of summer months in the south when people get home from work and a/c units are going strong and everyone plugs in a charger. It is an issue for the grid.

 

[FionaZuppa]

so, i'll make this short.

1st, the ROI on even the most competitive EV vs same gasoline car is bout 5-7 years before you break even due to the cost differential in sales price between the EV and gas car. i compared something like the toyota prius to a cousin gasoline vehicle (elantra i believe).

2nd, we can argue this until pigs fly, the footprint for smog doesnt go away, it simply moves it from the tailpipe to the electrical generating source. and to boot, most modern day gasoline engines run very clean, more so than coal or oil burning electrical plants.

3rd'ly, we dont have enough electrical plants to power a sudden massive adoption to EV vehicles. nuke has the density but it means lots of them which is dangerous, only solar can provide whats needed, and thats at least 50-100yrs away from being a player in grid power (lets see, night time seems to be an issue, which is the time of day you currently get breaks on power usage).

4th'ly, to get those extended ranges they speak of you need to buy the bigger bat option, even more $$ up front

5th'ly, the battery packs are toxic chemicals, there is currently no way to handle massive amounts of waste materials when these bat packs need replacing.

 

[ActionDave]

2nd, we can argue this until pigs fly, the footprint for smog doesnt go away, it simply moves it from the tailpipe to the electrical generating source. and to boot, most modern day gasoline engines run very clean, more so than coal or oil burning electrical plants.

3rd'ly, we dont have enough electrical plants to power a sudden massive adoption to EV vehicles. nuke has the density but it means lots of them which is dangerous, only solar can provide whats needed, and thats at least 50-100yrs away from being a player in grid power (lets see, night time seems to be an issue, which is the time of day you currently get breaks on power usage).
.

If you consider the service life of solar panels and disposal of them and the resources used to make new ones why is it a given that the nuclear option is the more dangerous one?

 

[iwire]

2nd, we can argue this until pigs fly, the footprint for smog doesnt go away, it simply moves it from the tailpipe to the electrical generating source. and to boot, most modern day gasoline engines run very clean, more so than coal or oil burning electrical plants.

Of course it does not go away but car engines are no where near as clean burning per unit of power as a power plant.

3rd'ly, we dont have enough electrical plants to power a sudden massive adoption to EV vehicles. nuke has the density but it means lots of them which is dangerous, only solar can provide whats needed, and thats at least 50-100yrs away from being a player in grid power (lets see, night time seems to be an issue, which is the time of day you currently get breaks on power usage).

We did not have enough gasoline delivery systems in place when gas engines took off.

50 to 100 years? Not a chance if there is money to made.

I won't pretend to know which technology will prevail but I doubt these points above are going to be deciding factors.

Money will be the deciding factor.

 

[iwire]

I made no comparison the the Tesla power. That would be a bit silly IMHO. But who would drive a car that can go from 0-60 in under four seconds at a constant 55 mph?

Anyway, this a photograph of the speedometer/oddometer.

The 696 is the calculated remaining miles with the fuel left in the tank. The "B" 372 was how far I'd travelled since my last fill. And it isn't a huge fuel tank - 14 and a bit Imperial gallons.
The car is a 2.2 litre diesel five seater saloon. Acceleration wouldn't set your pants on fire but top speed is about 130 mph which, considering that the maximum speed limit here in UK is 70mph, is plenty fast enough. Especially as our motorways are festooned with fixed speed cameras and mobile units can be anywhere. Automatic fines are imposed if you get flashed.

Don't get me wrong. I think the Tesla is a fine car. And there are other more affordable and quite practical EVs. If you have a known fixed commute to and from work or for shopping, an EV would cost less to run than a conventional ICE vehicle. I just don't like the hype that sometimes gets put about.

I think it is ridiculous you are comparing the cursing range of a sports car to an underpowered grocery getter.

 

[Besoeker]

I think it is ridiculous you are comparing the cursing range of a sports car to an underpowered grocery getter.

I think that it is ridiculous to give the range of a sports car based on driving at a constant 55mph.

 

[Besoeker]

Yes it would be charged at night. Think of summer months in the south when people get home from work and a/c units are going strong and everyone plugs in a charger. It is an issue for the grid.

I agree. And not just the grid. It's the whole electrical infrastructure. Generation, transmission, distribution, and installed capacity. The whole nine yards.
The current Nissan Leaf would have got me to work and back - twice. And it has a 30kWh battery. In UK average electrical energy consumption is under 13 kWh per day so it would about double average energy consumption.

 

[iwire]

I think that it is ridiculous to give the range of a sports car based on driving at a constant 55mph.

Do you have a better way?

Average everyone's aggressive driving and use that as a basis?


Its no different then MPG rating here in the states. You are not going to get the MPG listed but it is supposed to be a way to compare one car with another tested in the same way.

 

[iwire]

I agree. And not just the grid. It's the whole electrical infrastructure. Generation, transmission, distribution, and installed capacity. The whole nine yards.

And has always been the case throughout history if the money is there the problems will be overcome.

With gas prices plummeting other technologies will be put aside until gas prices rise again. So maybe the use of electric cars has been pushed back but I have no doubt that in many areas electric vehicles will take over.

In 1990 we did not have the Internet as we know it know, today just 25 years later we have billions of dollars of infrastructure dedicated to it. Money is always the driving force to solve problems.

 

[Besoeker]

Do you have a better way?

The average of Urban and Extra Urban is one way.

Its no different then MPG rating here in the states. You are not going to get the MPG listed but it is supposed to be a way to compare one car with another tested in the same way.

I routinely get better or much better than the published figure.
My "grocery getter" is fully loaded as motoring parlance goes here. All the boys toys and most of them respond to voice commands. His and her cabin temperature settings, HFT etc. Includes criuse control of course as many cars do these days. I normally set it to the speed limit and stop worrying about being clocked by one of those ubiquitous cameras. A fixed speed does wonders for the fuel consumption.

 

[Besoeker]

And has always been the case throughout history if the money is there the problems will be overcome.

With gas prices plummeting other technologies will be put aside until gas prices rise again. So maybe the use of electric cars has been pushed back but I have no doubt that in many areas electric vehicles will take over.

In 1990 we did not have the Internet as we know it know, today just 25 years later we have billions of dollars of infrastructure dedicated to it. Money is always the driving force to solve problems.

But it will need an awful lot of money to upgrade the entire electrical infrastructure if/when EVs become the dominant vehicle technology.

I don't know about the USA but the UK grid is just about meeting demand. The continuing decommissioning of aging nuclear power stations is a significant factor and the general public aversion to the technology has meant that successive governments have not embraced policy to permit future build until recently. It's a bit ironic considering that we routinely import from France (70% nuclear) at the full capacity of the cross channel HVDC link. I digress.

Yes, we can throw money at beefing up the electrical infrastructure to cope with the recharging requirements of EVs. I haven't seen any costings or even estimates for doing so. And that just might be the limiting factor.

 

[FionaZuppa]

If you consider the service life of solar panels and disposal of them and the resources used to make new ones why is it a given that the nuclear option is the more dangerous one?

because the radioactive materials that can spew from a plant is likely 1,000 fold more impacting than disposal o solar panels. a trailer flatbed (big rig) hauling say 10ton of used panels suddenly turns over on the freeway, they'll come sweep it all up........ a burst of radioactive steam up into the atmosphere from a nuke plant is....., well,....... not getting cleaned up, you basically have to clear the predicted path (not really practical).

if we get into fusion side, that may help, but you still need lots of them, and not really sure there's enough resources available to support fusion process to meet the power demands.

 

[FionaZuppa]

Of course it does not go away but car engines are no where near as clean burning per unit of power as a power plant.




We did not have enough gasoline delivery systems in place when gas engines took off.

50 to 100 years? Not a chance if there is money to made.

I won't pretend to know which technology will prevail but I doubt these points above are going to be deciding factors.

Money will be the deciding factor.

i'll disagree with you on several points.
1) as a whole, modern gas automobile engine will produce less emissions per mile than the electric producers to make the volts needed to move the best EV same amount of miles. there are locale cases where EV's win because the volts come from areas that are heavy in nuke, wind, or water, etc.
2) 50-100 yrs..... i am probably off by about 1,000 yrs. as long as black gold continues to rise to the surface, you are not replacing it and it will remain dominant.
3) there is already $$ in solar for daytime use, and its easy to deploy, manage, & maintain (and as clean as you can get), so ask yourself why it has not proliferated. why hasnt the fed mandated that every new home built have 25%(min) of its roof surface covered with ev panels?
4) solar has the inherent issue of night time. this is an issue that can be dealt with using not-yet-developed battery solutions (this part can be a real issue)
5) gas stations at some point proliferated because it followed the massive ramp-up in automotive assembly lines, of which the 1k cars per day had gas engines put in them. the horse was all those cars with gas engines, the cart being gasoline stations. black gold made it easy to do that. now go look at EV's, how exactly will they pump out 1k EV's per day and convince consumers that the competing gas car is no good even though EV's are more expensive? simply getting the horse for the race is very very difficult. once the horse is there then the "stations" (ev charging, gasoline, etc) will naturally follow. now, if black gold suddenly goes dry, thats a whole other ball of wax.

I routinely get better or much better than the published figure.
My "grocery getter" is fully loaded as motoring parlance goes here. All the boys toys and most of them respond to voice commands. His and her cabin temperature settings, HFT etc. Includes cruise control of course as many cars do these days. I normally set it to the speed limit and stop worrying about being clocked by one of those ubiquitous cameras. A fixed speed does wonders for the fuel consumption.

the same principle applies to EV's. if you drive it wisely (most dont) it should perform at the top or higher than published spec. ev or not, on/off the go pedal is just wasting energy. is EV any better or worse when it comes to "waste" based on this factor? not sure, but i suspect EV is better because gas engines are not very efficient during differential periods (like stomping the pedal, etc).

 

[Besoeker]

the same principle applies to EV's. if you drive it wisely (most dont) it should perform at the top or higher than published spec. ev or not, on/off the go pedal is just wasting energy. is EV any better or worse when it comes to "waste" based on this factor? not sure, but i suspect EV is better because gas engines are not very efficient during differential periods (like stomping the pedal, etc).

A couple of points.
The EV uses "fuel" that is produced and consumed more efficiently.
The EV (and hybrids) recover energy during deceleration. Regenerative braking is the term that would be used in the electrical field.

 

[FionaZuppa]

A couple of points.
The EV uses "fuel" that is produced and consumed more efficiently.
The EV (and hybrids) recover energy during deceleration. Regenerative braking is the term that would be used in the electrical field.

there is no regen/recoup of energy when you take your foot off of the ev pedal, nor when you step on it. braking is different.

efficient in what terms. CO2 emissions to produce 10kwh of gasonline vs 10kwh of electric, and from what source (coal, oil, nat gas, wind, solar, nuke)? electric plants are in fact wasting energy if their output is not at 100% because at 50% they are still turning the shafts at the same rate.

so, your 1st point is valid, yet not rooted in consumer land. sell me that EV that has same features as the gasoline equivalent for same price as the dino engine car, then i'll buy the EV, otherwise i am buying the gasoline version because i ditch them after 5yrs of use for something better, the break-even ROI for EV's is currently closer to 7yrs when looking at avg driver. for about $17k i can go 500+ miles with some interior accommodations, can do this day-in day-out, no worries of the "fuel" dying or being stranded because of no charging stations, and not worried about a bat pack that after X # of miles needs replacing.

i'll bet ya we'll see more of a true hybrid before we see full EV proliferate. the true hybrid is a super efficient gasoline engine tied to a super efficient generator. and it will be volts that drive the car, not mechanical gears and oils, etc. this is as efficient as you can get in a true gas/ev "hybrid". can likley get another +10% in efficiency in this type of hybrid. for some reason they skipped right over this.

what about hydrogen fuel cell, why not that instead of a full bat EV ??

 

[wwhitney]

there is no regen/recoup of energy when you take your foot off of the ev pedal, nor when you step on it. braking is different.

Not sure what you are saying here. EVs differ in whether they have their regen on the brake pedal, the accelerator, or both. Some have it all on the accelerator, and the brake pedal is just for friction brakes; when you are off all pedals you get maximum regen.

Others have it (almost) all on the brake pedal, with the first portion of the brake pedal travel being regen only. Further brake pedal travel starts blending in the friction brakes. For those, when you are off all pedals you are (almost) coasting.

Cheers, Wayne

 

[Besoeker]

efficient in what terms. CO2 emissions to produce 10kwh of gasonline vs 10kwh of electric, and from what source (coal, oil, nat gas, wind, solar, nuke)? electric plants are in fact wasting energy if their output is not at 100% because at 50% they are still turning the shafts at the same rate.

Don't confuse rotational speed with power.[/quote]