Tesla cars

[leafer]

It would be weighed down with tons of batteries. Also, after 60 the low end of the electric motors goes away and you slow down a lot.

 

 

Each Tesla Model S has some 7000 of little laptop batteries in a large pack in the floor.

 

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-20018836-48.html *pics of battery pack*

 

yzEQZBImhpY *NatGeo Megafactories*

 

EXP4Do1xPGk *Consumer Reports Podcast*

 

No the tech hasn't matured but you have to start somewhere, right? Also, Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla owns SpaceX. You gotta love the guy.

[RagnarDa]

That's not right. Are trees not 'green' then because they emit CO2?

 

But getting back to cars, the whole battery production and disposal process is quite toxic, and that's ignoring production of the car itself. Electric cars aren't green at all, nor do they have the potential to be in the forseeable future.

 

 

Do you mean that you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change? Ok, well, then I still argue it's better to have the toxic waste problems in a controlled environment (resource extraction, manufacturing, dismantling) than literary everywhere that cars are allowed. For example the NOx problem with diesel engines is quite a big deal, and it's discussed too little.

[GGTharos]

Do you mean that you don't believe in anthropogenic climate change?

 

Not really, unless you mean in a very localized manner. :)

 

Ok, well, then I still argue it's better to have the toxic waste problems in a controlled environment (resource extraction, manufacturing, dismantling) than literary everywhere that cars are allowed. For example the NOx problem with diesel engines is quite a big deal, and it's discussed too little.

 

Sure, pollution is a big issue. We've seen pollution reduction measures taken in many places ... and we still see places where those measures are not adequate.

[RagnarDa]

Not during night time.

 

 

Atleast we can hopefully agree that living trees doesn't add carbon to the atmosphere, unless they have really long roots (which would be interesting) or some kind of nuclear reactors (which would be even more interesting) ;)

[EtherealN]

Not really, unless you mean in a very localized manner. :)

 

Localized climate change? Wha? :P

 

Anyway, Ragnar said what I wanted to have said, so... :)

[leafer]

So, you guys thinking about buying one or what? Come in here and ruin everything.. :P

[Exorcet]

the Porsche shows what you can do with enough money behind it.

 

But you can put money into gas cars too:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_911_GT1

 

The 918 is pretty heavy for a sports car. It's fast too, but I bet it would go faster after a power transplant.

 

 

 

Each Tesla Model S has some 7000 of little laptop batteries in a large pack in the floor.

 

...

 

No the tech hasn't matured but you have to start somewhere, right? Also, Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla owns SpaceX. You gotta love the guy.

 

It's still weighty, but it doesn't show as much in a car that would be fairly heavy in gas form anyway (luxury sedan).

 

Yes, you do need to start somewhere, but the electric cars doesn't really offer me anything. It's more expensive than a gas car, slower, and not as exciting. I appreciate what they are, but I have no desire for what is currently available. If we get to the point where electricity starts putting out more power/weight than gas I'll be more interested.

 

So, you guys thinking about buying one or what? Come in here and ruin everything..

 

I actually did answer that question at least, but that wasn't enough to keep this from becoming a thread about trees.

[EtherealN]

If we get to the point where electricity starts putting out more power/weight than gas I'll be more interested.

 

For me, the big deal is recharging. It needs to be way faster than it is today for an electric to be practical for me. Hybrids could "solve" that, but they just don't convince me as far as efficiency goes, dragging an "extra" power plant along.

 

If I had the money to buy a Tesla just for joyrides... now that would be different. :P

[cichlidfan]

I was in a hybrid taxicab recently and I must say that the energy consumption display was quite entertaining. :D

[GGTharos]

It's 'been known that temperatures inside a city tend to be quite a bit higher than those of surrounding areas.

 

Localized climate change? Wha? :P

[RagnarDa]

For me a setup like the Chevrolet Volt/Opel Ampera would be a good fit. Living in the inner city I rarely use the car except when I'm lazy or I need to do larger grocery shopping. When I visit my parents like every other month the extra range would be useful. I wouldn't be able to do that trip in one stop in a pure electric like the Nissan Leaf.

[sobek]

It needs to be way faster than it is today for an electric to be practical for me.

 

It's already way faster than most people think. You can charge ~300km (IIRC) into a Tesla S in 30 mins, but that takes more current than what your typical family home grid access can take.

[EtherealN]

It's 'been known that temperatures inside a city tend to be quite a bit higher than those of surrounding areas.

 

Yeah, and serious, active, scientists control for that in measurements. It is irrelevant to climate science. (This all stems from a crank canard about weather stations getting "swallowed" by the expansion of cities, but fails an important point: it is controlled for (scientists know to evaluate the location of data points) and key temp data is, since a good couple decades, made with location-independent equipment like this thing called "satellites". ;) )

 

Heat islands isn't "climate". It's "Heat Islands".

[EtherealN]

It's already way faster than most people think. You can charge ~300km (IIRC) into a Tesla S in 30 mins, but that takes more current than what your typical family home grid access can take.

 

Yeah, but when my typical trip to a client is between 400 and 600km, spending 30 minutes halfway to "fill up" isn't helpful. And having to do it yet again afterwards isn't either. At the same time, the gas car gets 1000km on a tank that takes 2 minutes to fill...

 

Like I said, if I was just commuting to an office downtown, that would be no issue for me. But as-is, no way.

 

(Though, tbh, if I was just commuting to an office nearby, I'd probably get one of those cute moped-cars, or an electric similar.)

[GGTharos]

Interesting that you felt the need for this diatribe despite me not saying a thing about how heat data is collected ;)

 

Yeah, and serious, active, scientists control for that in measurements. It is irrelevant to climate science. (This all stems from a crank canard about weather stations getting "swallowed" by the expansion of cities, but fails an important point: it is controlled for (scientists know to evaluate the location of data points) and key temp data is, since a good couple decades, made with location-independent equipment like this thing called "satellites". ;) )

[EtherealN]

I saw the components, and they're familiar. :)

 

1) Not accepting anthropogenic climate change, except in a "localized" manner.

2) Talk about heat islands.

 

That's pretty much par for what we hear a lot of from cranks.

 

And besides, you know what one of my diatribes look like. They're a couple pages longer than that. ;)

But you could always elaborate your position and thus give me more to comment on. I would be intrigued. :D

[RIPTIDE]

Trees emit Oxygen. :P

 

Or do you mean when burning them down?

They do indeed. However... some people did a study and said that planting more trees above a certain latitude would actually have a warming effects as the sun's radiation would not reflect back into space as much heat as if there was less trees and hence more reflective snow.

 

MY solution therefore is to cut down all the trees above that latitude they spoke of. But I might just burn a tyre for now in honour of this thread.

[Cali]

I'll stick to my 2000 Mustang GT and piss off the Prius owners when I drive by.

[Yurgon]

My primary means of transportation requires no fuel at all, and its power source can be fed just about anything ranging from a slice of bread to a T-Bone steak. In terms of emissions, I'd say that's about as ecologically friendly as it gets. If you haven't guessed by now, I usually ride a bike. :D

 

For shopping and longer drives, I've got carsharing which works really well in the urban environment. They're just adding a couple of Nissan Leaf to the fleet, but I haven't tried them yet. Looking forward to testing them sometime soon, though. And I sure wouldn't mind if they added a Tesla to the VW Passat, Audi A4 and Mercedes SLK in the "Comfort" branch. :thumbup:

[leafer]

Congrats! You have a weak and fragile gas guzzler. :P

 

 

Toyota stock 22RE engine No gas guzzler but it jumps. :D

 

6CiONyce2v4

[RagnarDa]

I'll stick to my 2000 Mustang GT and piss off the Prius owners when I drive by.

 

 

Smug alert!

[hitman]

Congrats! You have a weak and fragile gas guzzler. :P

 

 

 

Toyota stock 22RE engine No gas guzzler but it jumps. :D

 

6CiONyce2v4

Weak and fragile gas guzzler = hot chicks and beer on fridays.

Strong and bullish martini sipper = lonely friday nights. And saturday nights...and a subscription to brazzers after youve had enough...

[sobek]

I usually ride a bike.

 

Good man.

[leafer]

I used to make 370 miles round trip on my Honda Wave 110cc from work to home then back to work on weekends; spending roughly 12 dollars worth of gas on each trip. I did this for four months until I could afford to rent a place and moved my family in with me. That Scooter has incredible gas mileage. From reading some of the posts here, all things considered, it probably is more efficient than today's electric cars. I started this thread because I just love the Tesla Model S for what it can do now. I've read that their goal is to cut battery prices by 30% in three years and 50% by 2020. Obviously they'll throw tons of money into R&D cheap and effective battery. Perhaps their tech will find its way into other industries and finally, solar-powered homes for the masses.

[EtherealN]

They do indeed. However... some people did a study and said that planting more trees above a certain latitude would actually have a warming effects as the sun's radiation would not reflect back into space as much heat as if there was less trees and hence more reflective snow.

 

That sounds... dubious... Since I know what winter looks like at high latitude, and can inform you that the trees end up white during winter. :P (We have more evergreens up here, which catch the snow more efficiently.)

 

However, a known effect is that some types of FOREST (as in, whole localized ecosystems) are carbon-neutral since the plants involved promote certain types of animal and microbial life that causes the carbon cycle to get more localized; the CO2 emitted by other life is used by the plant life promoted by the trees, which emits a net Oxygen that in turn is used by the other animal life. From memory, rainforest is an example of this; you cannot offset a net CO2 emission in Europe through preserving rainforest in the Amazon.

 

Another possibility is the risk of monocultures; forests in northern and western europe are, for example, heavily cultivated - we have almost no untouched woodlands. So where there used to be a diversity of trees and associated diversity of other plant and animal life, we've got what could be called an artificial set of monocoltures (one type of tree, one type of fungus, etcetera etcetera) that might not give the same balances.

 

All of that said, it's not like a net CO2 emission is in itself bad. Between natural emitters and natural absorbants, we actually have a pretty big margin where we can emit fossil CO2 without increasing CO2 concentration. The problem is just that we are now at a place where our emissions are way above that margin. :P