Tesla Model 3 - Now I get the hype.

AggieMike88 said:
Aviation has fod.

Tesla has fud.
Click to expand...

Fudd_on_Tap.png
 
Cap'n Jack said:
It's not going to get worse than it is now. In fact, decentralizing the grid somewhat from a few big power plants will improve the situation.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The worst losses by distance occur in "last mile" distribution, which typically uses lower-voltage lines. The higher the voltage, the less power is lost. But you can't run a 500kV line down main street. Increased demand also increases heat, which is lost power. That's why high-tension lines sag more on hot days: the heat generated by the increased demand for power. And the more heat, the more power is lost.

Unfortunately, as Tim said, nothing will be done until people feel pain.

On the supply side, I'm waiting to see how NYC and Westchester County residents react if, as some are predicting, their already-astronomical electric rates rise even more when Indian Point closes in 2020 or 2021. We're talking about losing more than 10 percent of the state's generating capacity and 25 percent of NYC's and Westchester County's supply, with no coherent plan to replace it within the time frame. Some experts are even predicting that rolling blackouts will be necessary. I'm sure that'll go over well on Park Avenue.

Rich
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Oh, but the one I send ahead is going to be an X (or, eventually, a pickup) towing a travel trailer. :D



Oh puhleeze. Here's a map of how much area we'd need to fill with solar panels to satisfy the entire needs of the country:

View attachment 74635
We have plenty of room for that... And lots to spare for wind too. And we still have plenty of hydro.

I wouldn't mind more nuclear, but that situation is what it is. Hopefully we'll invent something even better. Necessity being the mother and all that.
Click to expand...

Before you wish for more nuclear, you may want to read about the Southern Company's expansion of Plant Vogtle: https://www.powermag.com/how-the-vogtle-nuclear-expansions-costs-escalated/?pagenum=1

The professional staff of the Georgia Public Service Comission recommended abandoning the project as it is no longer economic. They were overruled by the elected commissioners, I will let you draw your own conclusions as to why.
 
@RJM62,

Indian Point is just the tip of the iceberg. RI has a nuclear plant shutting down this year. No plan on how to replace that energy...

Tim
 
FormerHangie said:
Before you wish for more nuclear, you may want to read about the Southern Company's expansion of Plant Vogtle: https://www.powermag.com/how-the-vogtle-nuclear-expansions-costs-escalated/?pagenum=1

The professional staff of the Georgia Public Service Comission recommended abandoning the project as it is no longer economic. They were overruled by the elected commissioners, I will let you draw your own conclusions as to why.
Click to expand...

It also took almost ten years to rebuild an exit ramp on the Long Island Expressway, six years for New York City to repair a skating rink (until Trump took over the project and got it done in six months), 45 years (and counting) to build 8.5 miles of subway line in Manhattan, and I've lost track of how far behind and over-budget the California High Speed Rail project is.

Incompetence, mismanagement, and corruption are not limited to nuclear power plant construction.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
Not necessarily. The worst losses by distance occur in "last mile" distribution, which typically uses lower-voltage lines. The higher the voltage, the less power is lost. But you can't run a 500kV line down main street. Increased demand also increases heat, which is lost power. That's why high-tension lines sag more on hot days: the heat generated by the increased demand for power. And the more heat, the more power is lost.

Unfortunately, as Tim said, nothing will be done until people feel pain.

On the supply side, I'm waiting to see how NYC and Westchester County residents react if, as some are predicting, their already-astronomical electric rates rise even more when Indian Point closes in 2020 or 2021. We're talking about losing more than 10 percent of the state's generating capacity and 25 percent of NYC's and Westchester County's supply, with no coherent plan to replace it within the time frame. Some experts are even predicting that rolling blackouts will be necessary. I'm sure that'll go over well on Park Avenue.

Rich
Click to expand...
Again, no worse than it is now with the "last mile". The comment about "hot days", they would sag more simply from it being a hot day. I'm no electrical engineer, but switching from AC to DC for the high voltage lines will reduce some of the loss, allowing higher voltages and less loss from joule heating and skin effects. I don't know how much it costs for the conversion to HVDC.
 
Naked promotion labeled as news predicts Tesla's China factory could be producing cars in less than 120 days, which is laughable.

It appears less than 40% of the factory roof is dried in, and progress photos taken over the last two months reveal that pouring of the factory's concrete flooring hasn't even begun.

Paving of the expansive truck dock area and approaches has not been started, and there is no evidence that construction of railroad spurs is in progress. Based on similarly sized auto factories, the Tesla plant will consume over 170,000 MWh of electrical power annually, but there is no sign whatsoever that transmission lines and substations are being built around the plant.

Speaking of which, carbon watchdog Global Energy Monitor estimates China has new coal fired power plants totaling 259 gigawatts of productive capacity under construction. Powering the Tesla factory will release billions of tons of CO2, sulphur dioxides, and heavy metals into the already polluted atmosphere over China. So much for EVs saving the planet.

Anyway, this article on teslarati.com illustrates two things. One, the author is stunningly ignorant regarding the processes of construction, and two, his predictions about completion of the factory are ridiculously inaccurate.

As I said above, there have been no interior concrete slabs poured at the plant. None. Yet he makes the following report:

Tesla Gigafactory 3’s latest developments hint at full speed interior work
tesla-gigafactory-3-complex-060219-1024x526.jpg

(Credit: Jason Yang/YouTube)

A recent flyover of Tesla’s Gigafactory 3 site in Shanghai, China, shows that work on the location continues to proceed at full speed. As could be seen in footage taken this Sunday, operation platforms are now present on the site, suggesting that the construction of the facility’s interior, as well as the preparations for the buildout of the factory’s assembly lines, is entering its initial phases.

Other signs of the work being done in the interior of Gigafactory 3 include the fewer number of cranes on the area. Updated images of the facility’s interior are yet to emerge, though it is not too farfetched to speculate that Tesla’s construction partner is now getting sections of Gigafactory 3’s interior ready for the setup of the Model 3’s production equipment.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-gigafactory-3-china-full-speed-interior-work/amp/

Setup of production equipment? Much of that equipment will require precisely constructed concrete foundations, yet there isn't a speck of simple concrete floor slab, much less large drilled piers and subgrade beams to support large presses and such.

Further unfounded and amateurish speculation:

Tesla intends to start manufacturing the Made-in-China Model 3 at Gigafactory 3 as early as possible. Provided that there will be no unexpected slowdowns in the construction of the facility, Gigafactory 3 might very well achieve its target of starting trial production runs of the Model 3 sometime in September.

Seemingly learning its lesson from the Model 3 ramp in the United States, Tesla announced during the launch of the locally-produced electric sedan that deliveries of the Gigafactory 3-produced vehicles will start in around 6-10 months. This aggressive timetable is actually quite conservative, as the Model 3 could start production in less than four months. Perhaps Tesla is trying its hand at under-promising and over-delivering? One can only hope.

With Gigafactory 3 ‘s shell all but complete, it is now up to Tesla to get its production equipment set up as quickly as possible.

Calling the building envelope "all but complete" is a Muskian exaggeration of gigantic proportions. The roof is open to the elements. The multiple exterior entrance structures have no glazing or doors. The truck dock portals lack doors and loading ramp mechanisms. Exterior paving areas encompassing acres are unimproved mud fields. The infrastructure required for multiple substations channeling many megawatts of power into the factory are nowhere to be seen, and the installation of hundreds of switchboards, miles of wire, and thousands of light fixtures is yet to commence.

There have been no press reports of production line equipment being manufactured or shipped.

In addition to all of that, over five minutes of video shot by drones reveals the almost complete absence of workers, trucks, mobile cranes, and laydown yards around the plant. Taking Sunday off seems like a very poor idea at this stage.

The factory site is adjacent to one of China's ghost cities, and 60 miles from Shanghai. There is no indication adequate accommodation is being made to house and support the workforce of thousands, nor transport them from housing areas to the factory daily. It appears there is no railroad access to the site, which indicates the means to move materials to make the vehicles and distribute them throughout the most populated country in the world will be by truck. That method has already been proven a disaster in the US.

Tesla has claimed the factory will be producing somewhere between 1,000 and 3,000 vehicles a week by the end of 2019. The number has varied, and has not been officially confirmed by a press release or SEC documents.

Considering the difficulties Tesla had in making 4,000 Model 3s per week in 2018, in a factory that was already established and making cars, had experienced employees and management, access to railroads and ports, and an operating subcontractor network, the chances of meeting their stated production numbers by the end of 2019 appear to be almost non-existent.

There is also the looming issue of production quality control. It is a well established fact that Model 3 production vehicles required post assembly line rework at a rate 3 or 4 times that of other American auto plants. There has also been widespread coverage in the press regarding defects in vehicles delivered to customers, and in February Consumer Reports withdrew its recommendation for purchase of the vehicle because of reliability issues.

It's almost certain the vehicles initially produced by the China factory will be similarly defective, and with sales in China in freefall, the outlook for robust sales, seen as critical to Tesla's survival, is dimming rapidly.

The respected industry publication Gasgoo, which sources individual sales data from the Chinese Passenger Car Association, released its numbers for April recently, and the Model 3 did not merit mention, as it wasn't in the top ten in NEV sales. The vehicle in the tenth spot sold 3,002 units, which means that Model 3 sales were below that figure, in spite of an estimated 6,000 imported that month.

This news, combined with the 1Q drop in US sales of the Model 3, bring forth the conclusion Tesla is not selling enough of the vehicles to turn a profit. While April-May US sales show a rebound, it remains to be seen how the China operation will play out. At this point, it appears expected 2019 production and sales projections will not be met.
 
Last edited:
1RTK1 said:
Are you sure about that?
Click to expand...
Sure, go look it up yourself- "high voltage direct current". I thought the same thing once. I read about the Westinghouse/Tesla vs. Edison AC vs. DC history.
 
1RTK1 said:
Are you sure about that?
Click to expand...

It seems at least somewhat likely. HVDC does suffer less line loss. The question is whether that will be enough to compensate for the conversion to AC that will be necessary to feed it into regional and local distribution grids. (AC also has to be stepped down for local distribution, however; and that process isn't lossless, either.)

Even DC's biggest advocates don't expect conversion to DC at the end-user stage except possibly for some businesses. In fact, ConEdison stopped providing DC to its few customers in New York City who still used it back in 2007. Much more likely, the long-distance transmission lines will use DC, and it will be converted to AC before being fed into the existing regional and local grids. There's just too much stuff running on AC to make end-user DC realistic for the vast majority of users.

Rich
 
RJM62 said:
On the supply side, I'm waiting to see how NYC and Westchester County residents react if, as some are predicting, their already-astronomical electric rates rise even more when Indian Point closes in 2020 or 2021. We're talking about losing more than 10 percent of the state's generating capacity and 25 percent of NYC's and Westchester County's supply, with no coherent plan to replace it within the time frame. Some experts are even predicting that rolling blackouts will be necessary. I'm sure that'll go over well on Park Avenue.

Rich
Click to expand...

I wonder if they will pull the California trick:

1) ban construction of any new in-state power generation facilities
2) mandate that the utilities relinquish control of power transmission lines, and force electrical utilities to divest themselves of power generation capacity
3) cap the retail sales price that utilities can charge customers
4) twiddle your thumbs as the wholesale price of electricity rises to exceed the capped retail price
5) scratch your head and wonder why all of the few remaining power generation companies in state and all outside the state won't sell to the in state power distribution companies (well at least not a price low enough that the utilities can afford to pay, given the retail price cap)
6) blame "de-regulation."
 
Last edited:
PPC1052 said:
I wonder if they will the California trick:

1) ban construction of any new in-state power generation facilities
2) mandate that the utilities relinquish control of power transmission lines, force electrical utilities to divest themselves of power generation capacity
3) cap the retail sales price that utilities can charge customers
4) twiddle your thumbs as the wholesale price of electricity rises to exceed the capped retail price
5) scratch your head and wonder why all of the few remaining power generation companies in state and all outside the state won't sell to the in state power distribution companies (well at least not a price low enough that the utilities can afford to pay, given the retail price cap)
6) blame "de-regulation."
Click to expand...

It's kind of doubtful. The utilities pretty much own the legislature here.

Governor Cuomo's not too crazy about them, though (nor was his father). After a long outage last year, he even told NYSEG to turn to and get the power lines fixed or he would entertain motions to revoke their franchise and give it to a non-profit co-op that serves part of the county. And despite my generally dim view of government, I agreed with him. Ever since NYSEG was sold to Avangrid, they do basically nothing in the way of preventive maintenance. The only way to get them to do so much as trim a tree limb is to get the Sheriff to call them. Consequently, any time the weather is less than CAVU, there's a decent chance of an outage.

I don't even necessarily disagree with him that Indian Point was a less-than-ideal place to build a nuclear plant, just like Shoreham was. Evacuation would be impossible were there an incident. I mean, trying to get into or out of New York City on a normal day is a nightmare. But it's already there, and I think it would have made a lot more sense to assure a replacement for the lost supply before pushing to decommission it.

Cuomo, however, is a bit of a worrywart. Until quite recently, he managed to snarl traffic across the whole Northeast by closing major Interstates every time a snowflake was rumored to be fluttering earthward. I think he finally got the message that the people at NYSDOT and NYSTA were better-qualified to make those decisions because it's been a while since he donned his mask and cape because of a snow forecast.

Still, I can understand why a guy who goes into crisis mode over snow in Upstate New York would obsess over a nuke plant sitting ~ 35 miles from NYC.

Rich
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Sure, go look it up yourself- "high voltage direct current". I thought the same thing once. I read about the Westinghouse/Tesla vs. Edison AC vs. DC history.
Click to expand...

How does HVDC compared to 3-phase in terms of line requirements?
 
3393RP said:
Naked promotion labeled as news predicts Tesla's China factory could be producing cars in less than 120 days, which is laughable.
Click to expand...

If there's one thing I've learned from watching Tesla for several years now, it's this: Don't bet against Elon Musk.

less than 40% of the factory roof is dried in
pouring of the factory's concrete flooring hasn't even begun.
Paving of the expansive truck dock area and approaches has not been started
Click to expand...

You realize that Gigafactory 1 has been open and producing batteries for over three years, but construction is only 1/3 complete, right? In fact, they were operational there when it was still open on two sides, and with very little paved area around it.

Also, this is the company that needed more production capacity and didn't have anywhere to put it at that particular moment, so they put up a big tent and put another production line in it.

What all of that means is, applying the rules of existing companies to Tesla doesn't work. They're the ones that do the thing, while others are saying "You can't do that thing."

Speaking of which, carbon watchdog Global Energy Monitor estimates China has new coal fired power plants totaling 259 gigawatts of productive capacity under construction. Powering the Tesla factory will release billions of tons of CO2, sulphur dioxides, and heavy metals into the already polluted atmosphere over China. So much for EVs saving the planet.
Click to expand...
there is no sign whatsoever that transmission lines and substations are being built around the plant.
Click to expand...

Traditional car factories also use power. So, still a net decrease. In addition, Gigafactory 1 is almost completely self-powered, through on-site geothermal and solar and surrounding wind. There's very little in the way of power lines nearby.

I'm not saying you're wrong - But I'm saying, what you've used as evidence doesn't necessarily mean you're right either.
 
RJM62 said:
It seems at least somewhat likely. HVDC does suffer less line loss. The question is whether that will be enough to compensate for the conversion to AC that will be necessary to feed it into regional and local distribution grids. (AC also has to be stepped down for local distribution, however; and that process isn't lossless, either.)
Click to expand...
From what I read, the solid state devices make it feasible now.

RJM62 said:
Even DC's biggest advocates don't expect conversion to DC at the end-user stage except possibly for some businesses. In fact, ConEdison stopped providing DC to its few customers in New York City who still used it back in 2007. Much more likely, the long-distance transmission lines will use DC, and it will be converted to AC before being fed into the existing regional and local grids. There's just too much stuff running on AC to make end-user DC realistic for the vast majority of users.

Rich
Click to expand...
I'm surprised there were any DC users left in NYC....leftovers from Edison himself? (I'm not questioning you). My understanding was that HVDC was intended for the long-range distribution, not for anything local where we get 120 VAC (in the USA).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
If there's one thing I've learned from watching Tesla for several years now, it's this: Don't bet against Elon Musk.



You realize that Gigafactory 1 has been open and producing batteries for over three years, but construction is only 1/3 complete, right? In fact, they were operational there when it was still open on two sides, and with very little paved area around it.

Also, this is the company that needed more production capacity and didn't have anywhere to put it at that particular moment, so they put up a big tent and put another production line in it.

What all of that means is, applying the rules of existing companies to Tesla doesn't work. They're the ones that do the thing, while others are saying "You can't do that thing."




Traditional car factories also use power. So, still a net decrease. In addition, Gigafactory 1 is almost completely self-powered, through on-site geothermal and solar and surrounding wind. There's very little in the way of power lines nearby.

I'm not saying you're wrong - But I'm saying, what you've used as evidence doesn't necessarily mean you're right either.
Click to expand...


Your platitudes are noted. The climate in Reno is substantially different than that around Shanghai. The average annual precipitation there is 47 inches, and it's heaviest between the months of June and September. Gee, building the factory in five months and then producing cars sounds problematic, doesn't it? Or is Elon, the Fremont Jesus, going to make the rain go away?

Comparing the Tesla factory's power consumption to the battery gigafactory is pointless. They have completely different power requirements. The fact that the plant will require an electrical service capable of supplying over 40 megawatts is the point, because it hasn't been built.

How can you possibly be serious about this subject when you mention geothermal and solar power? Tesla claims the factory will be producing thousands of cars per week in six months. Your comment that "applying the rules of existing companies to Tesla doesn't work" is nonsense, because the rules of time mean construction can't be infinitely compressed.

Don't you get it? The only way the plant is going to get electricity is by connecting to the existing grid, and the transmission lines to do that are nowhere to be seen.

A solar plant would be completely useless, because the sun goes down at night, the skies around Shanghai are mostly cloudy more than 50% of the time, and there's no way to build a solar plant of the required capacity before the plant is supposed to be producing cars. Concrete doesn't magically appear, and things like electrical switchgear and complicated industrial electrical distribution systems don't either.

Building a new factory in the middle of nowhere in China is quite a bit different than occupying an existing automobile production plant in Fremont, and there aren't going to be any miracles this time.
 
Last edited:
Cap'n Jack said:
I think it just needs the two lines. But I'm not completely sure.
Click to expand...

I've studied conversions, and it's typical to add a fourth conductor to the existing three to provide a set of parallel conductors for the DC circuit.

Conversion to HVDC has some distinct advantages, and the recent development of electronic solid state switching instead of the submerged mercury circuit breakers of yesterday are making the change economically and technically feasible.
 
3393RP said:
I've studied conversions, and it's typical to add a fourth conductor to the existing three to provide a set of parallel conductors for the DC circuit.

Conversion to HVDC has some distinct advantages, and the recent development of electronic solid state switching instead of the submerged mercury circuit breakers of yesterday are making the change economically and technically feasible.
Click to expand...

Any general info? I know basically nothing about the transmission side. I did software to control the building side which exposed me to some of the distribution aspects.

Tim
 
3393RP said:
I've studied conversions, and it's typical to add a fourth conductor to the existing three to provide a set of parallel conductors for the DC circuit.

Conversion to HVDC has some distinct advantages, and the recent development of electronic solid state switching instead of the submerged mercury circuit breakers of yesterday are making the change economically and technically feasible.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that information. It seems obvious, in hindsight, to add another conductor as you mentioned.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
From what I read, the solid state devices make it feasible now.

I'm surprised there were any DC users left in NYC....leftovers from Edison himself? (I'm not questioning you). My understanding was that HVDC was intended for the long-range distribution, not for anything local where we get 120 VAC (in the USA).
Click to expand...

Yes, Thomas Edison himself set up the accounts in 1882; and there were still a few thousand DC customers in NYC by the turn of the 21st Century. ConEdison spent years equipping all those buildings with convertors before pulling the DC plug for good on November 14, 2007.

Just as a point of trivia, NYC subway trains run on 625 volts DC delivered through the third rail. Everything else in the system except emergency lighting runs on AC. The system has its own 27kV AC feeds from the NYS Power Authority, and does its own conversions.

Rich
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
Elon, the Fremont Jesus
Click to expand...

:rofl: I'm keeping that one! :D

Comparing the Tesla factory's power consumption to the battery gigafactory is pointless. They have completely different power requirements. The fact that the plant will require an electrical service capable of supplying over 40 megawatts is the point, because it hasn't been built.

How can you possibly be serious about this subject when you mention geothermal and solar power? Tesla claims the factory will be producing thousands of cars per week in six months. Your comment that "applying the rules of existing companies to Tesla doesn't work" is nonsense, because the rules of time mean construction can't be infinitely compressed.

Don't you get it? The only way the plant is going to get electricity is by connecting to the existing grid, and the transmission lines to do that are nowhere to be seen.
Click to expand...

Don't *you* get it? The other half of Tesla's business is power - Storage and solar. Connecting to the existing grid is not "the only way" and in fact, in dirty-power China, I would think that the company whose mission statement is "to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy" would do something on their own...

A solar plant would be completely useless, because the sun goes down at night, the skies around Shanghai are mostly cloudy more than 50% of the time, and there's no way to build a solar plant of the required capacity before the plant is supposed to be producing cars.
Click to expand...

In response to power problems in South Australia in 2016 and 2017, Tesla built the world's largest energy storage facility - 129 MWh capable of up to 100 megawatts of output - in a mere 63 days from the day the contract was signed until the day it was connected to the grid after completion and testing.

So, sure, there may be "no way" to do it via conventional means with conventional thinking, but that is not how Tesla operates.

Building a new factory in the middle of nowhere in China is quite a bit different than occupying an existing automobile production plant in Fremont, and there aren't going to be any miracles this time.
Click to expand...

I wasn't even talking about Fremont. Tesla didn't build that facility. I was talking about Gigafactory 1 near Reno. The Chinese facility is Gigafactory 3. (Gigafactory 2 is near Buffalo.)

Again - I wouldn't bet on it happening in that time frame, but I wouldn't dare bet against it either, and I don't think anything you have said is proof that it can't happen.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Don't *you* get it? The other half of Tesla's business is power - Storage and solar. Connecting to the existing grid is not "the only way" and in fact, in dirty-power China, I would think that the company whose mission statement is "to accelerate the world's transition to sustainable energy" would do something on their own...

In response to power problems in South Australia in 2016 and 2017, Tesla built the world's largest energy storage facility - 129 MWh capable of up to 100 megawatts of output - in a mere 63 days from the day the contract was signed until the day it was connected to the grid after completion and testing.

So, sure, there may be "no way" to do it via conventional means with conventional thinking, but that is not how Tesla operates.

I wouldn't bet on it happening in that time frame, but I wouldn't dare bet against it either, and I don't think anything you have said is proof that it can't happen.
Click to expand...

You can't seem to grasp the amount of power an automobile plant uses. The Aussie battery would provide power for minutes.

The EPA says a "medium" sized automobile plant uses 480 mWh per day, based on a 250 day work year. Solar power facilities have a capacity factor that's less than 20% in most cases, and although Shanghai is located at 31°N, it also receives 47" of rain annually, so it's safe to say that 20% is optimistic.

Using that factor, care to guess how large a PV array and battery capable of producing around 80 mW and 480 mWh per day might be?

You're asserting that Tesla can power the factory using solar power and storage, and do so using a timetable that will result in independence from the grid just months from now. That's beyond laughable. Their efforts so far in that regard illustrate the reasons why.

Let's examine Tesla's ability to generate power at the Gigafactory.

In a post above you claimed:

In addition, Gigafactory 1 is almost completely self-powered, through on-site geothermal and solar and surrounding wind. There's very little in the way of power lines nearby.

This is false. The PV arrays at the factory don't come close to providing enough power, and there are no wind turbines producing power. In fact, there is only 150 mW of wind generation capacity in the entire state of Nevada. There is no evidence of geothermal sources near the factory, and there have been no visible activity or press releases which indicate the connection a source.

This article reveals Tesla's earlier claims the Gigafactory would be self sufficient in power production are just more falsehoods by the company.

http://euanmearns.com/powering-the-tesla-gigafactory/

Besides all this, my basic premise still stands. As the China factory stands now, today, the likelihood of it producing 2,000 to 3,000 cars per week ready for delivery to customers by December 31, 2019 is practically nil. Electrical power for the plant is just one of many reasons why.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
You can't seem to grasp the amount of power an automobile plant uses. The Aussie battery would provide power for minutes.
Click to expand...

You said 40MW. So, not minutes, but 3 hours. Not that I expect them to actually do it that way... Ya gotta charge 'em somehow!

You're asserting that Tesla can power the factory using solar power and storage, and do so using a timetable that will result in independence from the grid just months from now.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying any such thing - I'm merely saying that your assertion that there isn't a giant substation there yet doesn't necessarily mean anything, because Tesla's mission is to be sustainable and they've shown a willingness to think very much outside the box on a number of things.

This is false. The PV arrays at the factory don't come close to providing enough power, and there are no wind turbines producing power. In fact, there is only 150 mW of wind generation capacity in the entire state of Nevada. There is no evidence of geothermal sources near the factory, and there have been no visible activity or press releases which indicate the connection a source.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, I seem to recall a lot more PV on Gigafactory 1 than I see now. But there's also no giant substations nearby, nor a ton of visible wires coming from outside, other than some coming down from the nearby hills, which I assumed to be the wind capacity. When you say there's "only 150 mw of wind generation capacity in the entire state of Nevada," what's your source and are they only counting public capacity? And I assume you meant Megawatts, not milliwatts...
 
One thing everyone forgets, what are we going to do about the road tax LOSS incurred when we quit buying gas?????
There will also be a huge tax/employment trickle down loss for all automotive related industries.
 
1RTK1 said:
One thing everyone forgets, what are we going to do about the road tax LOSS incurred when we quit buying gas?????
Click to expand...

The $225 “EV road use fee” I pay per Tesla per year during my registration serves as a nice reminder.
 
Don't worry, if we have a majority of EV's on the road that fee is going to sky rocket. You are getting off cheap now.
Doing a little math, I figure I pay over $1000 in gas tax for myself not including my wife.
 
Last edited:
1RTK1 said:
Doing a little math, I figure I pay over $1000 in gas tax for myself not including my wife.
Click to expand...
I'm curious..... roughly how many miles driven does this cost cover?
 
Roughly 40,000. Here in komnifornia they "say" our gas tax runs around 55 cents per gallon. They used to list all the taxes on the pumps but I haven't seen that in years.....
40,000/19mpg=2105 gallons x .55cents/gallon = $1157
 
1RTK1 said:
Roughly 40,000. Here in komnifornia they "say" our gas tax runs around 55 cents per gallon. They used to list all the taxes on the pumps but I haven't seen that in years.....
40,000/19mpg=2105 gallons x .55cents/gallon = $1157
Click to expand...

In Gas Tax... got it......

But let's do a math experiment based on your 19mpg you state...

Looking at Gas Buddy for "Central Left Coast", I'm seeing a range of $3.80-$4.00/gallon for gasoline. For this example, we'll go with the lower.

2105 Gallons of estimated fuel usage x $3.80 = $7,999.00. And that includes the fuel tax you referenced.

Using this source below....

How much does it cost to charge a Tesla Model X? (website link)
The cost of charging a Tesla Model X depends on whether you are using the free charging offered for this model at the Tesla supercharger stations or another charging station. It also depends on the size of battery pack that you purchased with the car and whether you are fully charging the battery from flat.

The Tesla Model X can be purchased with battery packs of different capacities between 60 to 100-kilowatt hours (kWh).

Let ’s assume you own the Model X with a 100 kWh battery and you pay the national average cost for power across the United States of 13 cents per kWh, then it will cost $13 for a full charge. Given this car has a range of 295 miles, the cost per mile works out to 4.4 cents or $4.40 per 100 miles driven. The exact cost will depend on your electric rate plan pricing from your utility company.​

40,000 miles x $0.044 cents/mile = $1,760

Cost to fuel your ICE vehicle for a year: $8,000
Cost to "fuel" a Model X for a year: $1,800​

Plus EV's, such as the Tesla cars, have a much longer projected lifespan and reduce maintenance cost over ICEV's. Tesloop (an LA based EV company who used to offer shuttle service between LA and Las Vegas) has several Tesla cars with 300k to 450k on the clock, all going very strong (source link).

Now my math might be a bit off because I am assuming some data points, but even if I'm 50% wrong, the difference there is pretty noticeable and kinda interesting.
 
1RTK1 said:
One thing everyone forgets, what are we going to do about the road tax LOSS incurred when we quit buying gas?????
There will also be a huge tax/employment trickle down loss for all automotive related industries.
Click to expand...

Many states have additional fees for EVs and hybrids already to make up for the loss in the gas tax.

There'll definitely be some interesting effects on other automative-related industries, though. I would imagine that a lot of little mom-and-pop gas stations will balk at the price of installing a charger (if there's even a point, TBH) and go about business as usual, until their gas revenue dries up and they go out of business... Or they continue to do just fine on convenience store sales. I'm really not sure what their revenue mix is. Oil companies, refineries, and pipelines will probably do OK, since they'll still be making and transporting plenty of Jet-A for the foreseeable future, and diesel for a while too. There will definitely be big changes in all of those businesses, though.

1RTK1 said:
Roughly 40,000. Here in komnifornia they "say" our gas tax runs around 55 cents per gallon. They used to list all the taxes on the pumps but I haven't seen that in years.....
40,000/19mpg=2105 gallons x .55cents/gallon = $1157
Click to expand...

It's worse than that. California alone is 47.7 cents per gallon, federal is 18.4 so you're at 66.1 cents per gallon in total taxes.

That said, the federal gas tax is far too low right now, it was set at 18.4 cents in 1993, when gas was typically under $1/gal, and hasn't increased at all with inflation - It should be at around 32.5 cents per gallon now. But, that's why our roads are falling apart.
 
Exactly Aggie, that is why I predict the “fees” for EV’s are going to sky rocket either in licensing or per mile driven. Overall costs should be cheaper for electric if you can find a car to suit your needs and barring big brothers thirst for money.
Have a friend that bought a geo something or another for $10,000, he gets 40+mpg and uses it to commute (350,000 miles to date). The cheapest EV if I am not mistaken runs around $30,000+, you can buy a lot of petro for $20,000.
 
Last edited:
1RTK1 said:
Exactly Aggie, that is why I predict the “fees” for EV’s are going to sky rocket either in licensing or per mile driven. Overall costs should be cheaper for electric if you can find a car to suit your needs and barring big brothers thirst for money.
Have a friend that bought a geo something or another for $10,000, he gets 40+mpg and uses it to commute (350,000 miles to date). The cheapest EV if I am not mistaken runs around $30,000+, you can buy a lot of petro for $20,000.
Click to expand...

Since Geo stopped making the something or other in 1997, that's either comparing a used vehicle or a 22-year old price against a new vehicle. However, even then the math is not that much in its favor:

350'000 miles @ 40mpg = 8750 gallons x $3.00 = $26'250
350'000 miles @ 240wH/m = 84MWh x 12c/KWh = $10'000

So the Geo will cost $16'250 more to run (just in fuel). Sure, not quite $20k, but again - comparing a new car against a car that is at least 22 years older.

As far as I can tell, there is no gasoline vehicle sold new in the US today that will beat a $30k EV in total cost of ownership ($30k + $10k = $40k) over 350'000 miles. A new Versa is $13255 but will run $30k in gas over 350k miles. A new Prius C is $22'000 and will run $20500 in gas.
 
deonb said:
Since Geo stopped making the something or other in 1997, that's either comparing a used vehicle or a 22-year old price against a new vehicle. However, even then the math is not that much in its favor:

350'000 miles @ 40mpg = 8750 gallons x $3.00 = $26'250
350'000 miles @ 240wH/m = 84MWh x 12c/KWh = $10'000

So the Geo will cost $16'250 more to run (just in fuel). Sure, not quite $20k, but again - comparing a new car against a car that is at least 22 years older.

As far as I can tell, there is no gasoline vehicle sold new in the US today that will beat a $30k EV in total cost of ownership ($30k + $10k = $40k) over 350'000 miles. A new Versa is $13255 but will run $30k in gas over 350k miles. A new Prius C is $22'000 and will run $20500 in gas.
Click to expand...

Define vehicle, because I can buy a scooter pretty dang cheap and get hella good mileage too
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Many states have additional fees for EVs and hybrids already to make up for the loss in the gas tax.

There'll definitely be some interesting effects on other automative-related industries, though. I would imagine that a lot of little mom-and-pop gas stations will balk at the price of installing a charger (if there's even a point, TBH) and go about business as usual, until their gas revenue dries up and they go out of business... Or they continue to do just fine on convenience store sales. I'm really not sure what their revenue mix is. Oil companies, refineries, and pipelines will probably do OK, since they'll still be making and transporting plenty of Jet-A for the foreseeable future, and diesel for a while too. There will definitely be big changes in all of those businesses, though.



It's worse than that. California alone is 47.7 cents per gallon, federal is 18.4 so you're at 66.1 cents per gallon in total taxes.

That said, the federal gas tax is far too low right now, it was set at 18.4 cents in 1993, when gas was typically under $1/gal, and hasn't increased at all with inflation - It should be at around 32.5 cents per gallon now. But, that's why our roads are falling apart.
Click to expand...
Personally I think they should do away with the federal tax and shut down federal agencies associated with roads. Let the states deal with it all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top