Tesla Model 3 - Now I get the hype.

1RTK1 said:
Are you sure about that?
Click to expand...

Well, this is a bit complicated. DC is more efficient for transmission over long distances because there are no inductive and capacitive losses with DC. However, the DC needs to be transformed back to AC at the end, and also for any step up/down transformers in the system. Transformers don’t work on DC. These conversions to/from AC will result in losses. While I haven’t done the actual calculations, I suspect that there could be cases where it makes sense to do the conversion to DC for long lines, and there will also be many cases where it does not make sense. I do believe that it is likely that the costs of changing over to some sort of mixed mode system like this would be higher than the benefits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
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[/QUOTE]


I guess if we pile on enough big words and heavy thought to this long distance high voltage DC transmission concept, we can force Mother Nature to change her ways?
There is a reason why Tesla won the "War of the Currents". And it wasn't just because Edison was an ass.
 
Art Rose said:
I guess if we pile on enough big words and heavy thought to this long distance high voltage DC transmission concept, we can force Mother Nature to change her ways?
There is a reason why Tesla won the "War of the Currents". And it wasn't just because Edison was an ass.
Click to expand...

There's no reason in physics why DC can't be used just as effectively as AC. At the time, it was much easier to make a transformer for AC, because all you needed was a pair of concentric windings. But, that isn't why AC won. It was much more a battle of PR and legal wrangling than it was a battle of technology, and with AC coming out on top, technology development focused there.

But, with today's technology, there's no reason we couldn't be all-DC... It's just that we would have to replace nearly our entire infrastructure and everything connected to it. It simply isn't economical to do that all at once, regardless of how much better DC might be... And it's not THAT much better, which is why it's in use only in a few places where it really is significantly better and a conversion to/from AC happens at each end.
 
jimhorner said:
Well, this is a bit complicated. DC is more efficient for transmission over long distances because there are no inductive and capacitive losses with DC. However, the DC needs to be transformed back to AC at the end, and also for any step up/down transformers in the system. Transformers don’t work on DC. These conversions to/from AC will result in losses. While I haven’t done the actual calculations, I suspect that there could be cases where it makes sense to do the conversion to DC for long lines, and there will also be many cases where it does not make sense. I do believe that it is likely that the costs of changing over to some sort of mixed mode system like this would be higher than the benefits.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Click to expand...

Right now, the conversions to/from the high and low AC voltages result in losses too. The solid-state conversions bring the conversion losses in line, or lower than, existing conversions. Some lines have been converted, others will be converted as part of any modernization, and some may never be converted. It's based on the economics.

Art Rose said:
I guess if we pile on enough big words and heavy thought to this long distance high voltage DC transmission concept, we can force Mother Nature to change her ways?
There is a reason why Tesla won the "War of the Currents". And it wasn't just because Edison was an ass.
Click to expand...
No, the laws of physics still apply. AC won the "war of the currents" based on the technologies of the time, and economics. HVDC is only feasible now with new solid state electronics to convert between AC and DC, while keeping the losses no worse than existing transformers. I doubt AC will go away, particularly for local distribution.
You do know that this is in place and working now? New York buys DC from Canada. It's been used for some time in Europe, and new long distance power lines in China are, or will be, HVDC.

flyingcheesehead said:
There's no reason in physics why DC can't be used just as effectively as AC. At the time, it was much easier to make a transformer for AC, because all you needed was a pair of concentric windings. But, that isn't why AC won. It was much more a battle of PR and legal wrangling than it was a battle of technology, and with AC coming out on top, technology development focused there.

But, with today's technology, there's no reason we couldn't be all-DC... It's just that we would have to replace nearly our entire infrastructure and everything connected to it. It simply isn't economical to do that all at once, regardless of how much better DC might be... And it's not THAT much better, which is why it's in use only in a few places where it really is significantly better and a conversion to/from AC happens at each end.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was technology and economics. Those simple transformers made it possible to send the AC long distances. The AC equipment of the time really was less expensive.
 
GeorgeC said:
Faster please: https://www.tesla.com/solarroof/
Click to expand...
I think that's pretty cool. But I'll bet it's expensive! Probably take 40 years or more to amortize the savings to pay for it, or even to break even.
And my first though was how slippery it will probably be if anyone ever has to walk on it? But I'll definitely consider it if I build a new house, IF the timing works out.
 
GeorgeC said:
Faster please: https://www.tesla.com/solarroof/
Click to expand...

That tech is cool. I've looked into it a couple of times as my wife would like to be solar and more "off the grid". Our house faces the street on the south side so our solar would need to be on the front of the roof and this would look like roof, not solar. Unfortunately it would have cost in excess of $150,0000 when I last looked into it. The ROI is decades away. I hope stuff like this gets much more cost effective but for now, it's not practical economically.
 
jsstevens said:
That tech is cool. I've looked into it a couple of times as my wife would like to be solar and more "off the grid". Our house faces the street on the south side so our solar would need to be on the front of the roof and this would look like roof, not solar. Unfortunately it would have cost in excess of $150,0000 when I last looked into it. The ROI is decades away. I hope stuff like this gets much more cost effective but for now, it's not practical economically.
Click to expand...

This guy had his down at $70,000.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/06/1...of-a-roof-electricity-cleantechnica-analysis/
 
If I plug in my address, it says:
Value of energy (over 30 years): $38,800
Cost of roof: $40,500
Tax credit: $9,300
Net earned over 30 years: $7,600
 
GeorgeC said:
If I plug in my address, it says:
Value of energy (over 30 years): $38,800
Cost of roof: $40,500
Tax credit: $9,300
Net earned over 30 years: $7,600
Click to expand...
I couldn't find where to plug in my address. I have to leave now and will look again later, but if you could give me a hint . . .
 
GeorgeC said:
If I plug in my address, it says:
Value of energy (over 30 years): $38,800
Cost of roof: $40,500
Tax credit: $9,300
Net earned over 30 years: $7,600
Click to expand...

Does that include the wall of batteries needed to store the energy, or just the roof? What about replacement of the those storage batteries every 10-15 years?
 
That does not include any powerwalls, which are 10k apiece. The bigger question is, is it installed or just the cost of materials?
 
GeorgeC said:
That does not include any powerwalls, which are 10k apiece. The bigger question is, is it installed or just the cost of materials?
Click to expand...

Yup, so there went the profit for the first 30 years just with buying required equipment. Not to mention if you have to replace the powerwall 2-3 times in that same time period. Just like anything else Tesla makes/sells (Model 3/X/S), if you're buying it to try to win economically, it just doesn't work out for most situations.
 
Not to mention that guy is using Cali for an example. Worst case things as usual. With the above solar system and living in my current residence averaging 600 KWH at 12 cents per? Well it’ll take 25 years just to break even.

Friend of mine in Hawaii has an all solar setup on his house but his monthly power bill was $300-400 per month. Solar makes complete sense there. I’m averaging $75 per month and asked him about going solar. He said, unless I wanted to save a tree or something, don’t even bother with solar with my current rates.
 
I wonder if they'll sell the non-solar tiles on their own, I'm tired of replacing slates.
 
Ahh, Living on the Oregon Coast:
$22,700 Value of energy

-$34,300 Cost of roof

-$10,100 Cost of Powerwall battery

+$9,300 Tax credit

$12,400 Net cost over 30 years
 
jsstevens said:
Payback in 15 years IF I could get 100% free power.
Click to expand...
Actually filling in the website for my house, using cash, 70% coverage and $350/month average power bills, I break even in 30 years-only because the tax credit exactly offsets the deficit in cost.
 
As usual, the Tesla hype is shot down by facts. It becomes more obvious every day that Musk sold Tesla shareholders a tech version of the Emperor's New Clothes when he talked them into the Solar City deal.


MIT Technology Review
May 15, 2019

Tesla’s trumpeted solar shingles are a flop

Tesla’s 2016 acquisition of SolarCity is looking worse and worse. And its $1 billion solar gigafactory in Buffalo, New York, which the state built, subsidized, and equipped for SolarCity, seems to be primarily operating as a Panasonic plant.

The news: The overwhelming majority of the solar cells produced at the facility are now being sold overseas rather than being used in Tesla’s “Solar Roof” photovoltaic product, according to a Reuters report on Wednesday, citing a letter to US customs officials from Panasonic, Tesla’s partner on the plant.

That product was designed to resemble rooftop shingles with solar cells embedded inside, an effort to differentiate the offering in the commodity solar panel business. But the line appears to have been a flop. California’s utilities have connected only 21 such systems, according to state data obtained by the news service. And just “a few” were installed in the Northeast, Reuters reported, citing an anonymous former employee.

In the more than two years since Tesla acquired SolarCity, its overall solar installations have plummeted by more than 76%.

It’s unclear precisely how many solar cells, roof tiles, or panels Tesla is now producing itself or acquiring from Panasonic. But it's likely a small fraction of the one gigawatt of solar capacity a year that the company initially boasted the factory would produce (see “10 Breakthrough Technologies 2016: SolarCity’s Gigafactory”).

https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613541/teslas-trumpeted-solar-shingles-are-a-flop/

Forbes weighed in on the product two years ago, and not much has changed since then. According to Musk, the mass production of solar shingles was imminent, and a permanent rainbow would form over every home equipped with the product.

That, like many other predictions by Musk, has not come close to being accurate.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidl...atch-edition-before-the-tesla-solar-roof/amp/

I realize Forbes has little credibility among the Cognoscenti, a situation likely brought on because their articles about Tesla are devoid of the exaggeration and blue sky present in write-ups by Elektrek and others that produce industry "news".

The link above exposes the solar shingles true market cost, inefficiency, and compares them to the cost and longevity of standard solar panels. To sidestep the suspense, here's the takeaway; choosing the shingles over solar panels would not be the smartest decision.


 
SoonerAviator said:
Does that include the wall of batteries needed to store the energy, or just the roof? What about replacement of the those storage batteries every 10-15 years?
Click to expand...

I think it does include one (or at least, it did when I looked into it) with the option for more.

However, it's not necessarily designed to go totally off-grid. Doing an off-grid system, especially here in Wisconsin, is foolish, because you need to have enough generation AND storage capacity to make it through the dark winter. I'll have to ask a friend nearby what he generated in February, but I bet it's a small fraction of his rated capacity... So you need to be able to do more than just make it through the night, you have to have excess power for months at a time. $$$$$. Grid tied is the way to go.

Unfortunately, our local utility is attempting to push through new fees that would completely eliminate any financial advantage of solar whatsoever. You'd basically pay a "solar grid tie fee" pretty much equal to the amount you would save by not buying their juice.
 
They did that (solar fee) in Alabama. I bet they even charge you a monthly disconnect fee if you went off grid.
 
FastEddieB said:
Honda Clarity’s come with a 120v L1 charger to plug into any 15A conventional outlet.

Some brave soul had the brilliant idea to make an adapter to plug it into a 240v outlet. The idea was that the charger was likely a “dual-voltage” device, since then Honda could use the same charger with a different plug in worldwide markets where 240v or equivalent is common. And it apparently works - charging the Clarity in about 1/2 the time, with no apparent ill effects or unusually high temps.

I went ahead and made an adapter to use a 240v outlet in our hangar. I just haven’t screwed up the courage to try it yet. If I do - and survive - I’ll let you know!
Click to expand...

It took a while, but yesterday I took the plunge. First, just plugged the 120v-marked Honda’s-supplied charge cable into my 240v adapter cable. The “Ready” light came with no sparks or flames or heat or other drama. The final proof of the pudding was plugging it into the Clarity:

upload_2019-6-28_7-20-6.jpeg

Again, no drama and the car’s “Charging” light dutifully glowed green. No noticeable heat anywhere in the run, and the car is accepting the 240v without protest:

upload_2019-6-28_7-22-55.png

WHEW!

Anyway, about 95% of the time just charging overnight at 120v is more than enough to get to full charge by morning. And it’s rare we have several trips out during the day to necessitate quicker charging between errands. And with gas prices such as they are, it’s not the end of the world if we run in hybrid mode a bit if we run out of battery, with little or no delta in energy cost. But still glad the little experiment worked. I may build another adapter cable to do the same thing with the 50a outlet at our RV pedestal, the type of which may present itself in the wild as well.
 
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...
One thing everyone forgets, what are we going to do about the tax LOSS incurred when we quit buying horse shoes???? Oh what'd ya know, it worked out.

One thing everyone forgets, what are we going to do about the tax LOSS incurred when we quit taking the train every time we travel???? Oh what'd ya know, it worked out.

One thing everyone forgets, what are we going to do about the tax LOSS incurred when the street lights turn themselves on???? Oh what'd ya know, it worked out.

One thing everyone forgets, what are going to do about the tax LOSS incurred when you make a phone call without talking to an operator???? Oh what'd ya know, it worked out.


Technologies evolve and paradigms shift and economies adapt. Been happening forever. No reason to assume economies won't continue to adapt.
 
Juliet Hotel said:
One thing everyone forgets, what are we going to do about the tax LOSS incurred when we quit buying horse shoes???? Oh what'd ya know, it worked out.

One thing everyone forgets, what are we going to do about the tax LOSS incurred when we quit taking the train every time we travel???? Oh what'd ya know, it worked out.

One thing everyone forgets, what are we going to do about the tax LOSS incurred when the street lights turn themselves on???? Oh what'd ya know, it worked out.

One thing everyone forgets, what are going to do about the tax LOSS incurred when you make a phone call without talking to an operator???? Oh what'd ya know, it worked out.


Technologies evolve and paradigms shift and economies adapt. Been happening forever. No reason to assume economies won't continue to adapt.
Click to expand...

I see a few problems with this mentality.
1. Historically more people were closer to agriculture and self sustaining farms/communities than now.
2. The percentage of the population affected. Currently, there are roughly 160 million people working in the USA. We have the perfect storm of tech hitting us over a twenty year period.
-- Roughly 5 million professional drivers most of whom will be unemployed withing 15-20 years based on most estimates for autonomous vehicles.
-- Roughly 1.5 million mechanics, a couple of economists I have read suggest roughly 90% will lose jobs due to EVs versus ICE engines
-- EVs are lasting longer than ICE cars; expect car life to last longer
-- Combination of EVs and AV are looking to move people away from car ownership to ride sharing/taxi. This will reduce the number of cars; this will impact dealers. Dealers will also be impacted by limited to no service on cars.
-- Manufacturing automation. There are roughly 12 million people in the USA working in manufacturing on the line. Roberts are expected to eliminate 20% of this work force within 20 years. Now, most of these positions will be replaced with white collar engineering type positions. The question is where these people will come from.

All together, this is a massive social and economic change that will be rather tough for roughly (5+1.5*.9+6) 15% of direct employment positions of the next 20 years. That does not count ripple effects or the unknown impacts (such as what happens to dealers). Current politicians and social leaders are not seriously considering these issues, or preparing for it.

Tim
 
tspear said:
I see a few problems with this mentality.
1. Historically more people were closer to agriculture and self sustaining farms/communities than now.
2. The percentage of the population affected. Currently, there are roughly 160 million people working in the USA. We have the perfect storm of tech hitting us over a twenty year period.
-- Roughly 5 million professional drivers most of whom will be unemployed withing 15-20 years based on most estimates for autonomous vehicles.
-- Roughly 1.5 million mechanics, a couple of economists I have read suggest roughly 90% will lose jobs due to EVs versus ICE engines
-- EVs are lasting longer than ICE cars; expect car life to last longer
-- Combination of EVs and AV are looking to move people away from car ownership to ride sharing/taxi. This will reduce the number of cars; this will impact dealers. Dealers will also be impacted by limited to no service on cars.
-- Manufacturing automation. There are roughly 12 million people in the USA working in manufacturing on the line. Roberts are expected to eliminate 20% of this work force within 20 years. Now, most of these positions will be replaced with white collar engineering type positions. The question is where these people will come from.

All together, this is a massive social and economic change that will be rather tough for roughly (5+1.5*.9+6) 15% of direct employment positions of the next 20 years. That does not count ripple effects or the unknown impacts (such as what happens to dealers). Current politicians and social leaders are not seriously considering these issues, or preparing for it.

Tim
Click to expand...

Probably won't mean much. Avg age of vehicles in the US is 12 years old, and average years between new car purchases is less than 7 years. People don't seem to buy new cars because the old one is worn out, it likely has less than 85K miles on it. People buy new cars because they want whatever is new/fancy, suits their new lifestyle, or they just get bored with it. EVs lasting longer is great and all, but people will still buy new EVs because of updated cosmetics, tech features, or just because they don't want to be seen driving to the country club in their previous body-style model.
 
tspear said:
-- Roughly 5 million professional drivers most of whom will be unemployed withing 15-20 years based on most estimates for autonomous vehicles.
-- Roughly 1.5 million mechanics, a couple of economists I have read suggest roughly 90% will lose jobs due to EVs versus ICE engines
Click to expand...
As someone who hires and fires and manages truck drivers, I cannot wait for the day when I can make the trucks go down the road without having to pay a human being to get it done. And that day will come. But it won't be in 20 years.

True its likely the trucks will be able to drive themselves in 20 years time. But they won't be doing so without a human along for ride. They'll still have a human who will still be getting paycheck. That human just won't be doing most of the driving. That person will be more of an operator who will swing the doors and manage the load. And yes we will likely get to a point where the trucks will go down the road unattended but that will take major changes to how the infrastructure of logistics work and those changes happen slowly. Forklifts have been in common use in logistics for half a century or more and yet the job of lumper (day labor that a truck driver hires on the spot to hand unload the truck) still exists. There are many aspects of trucking that autonomous trucks won't be able to handle and that the industry isn't currently equipped to deal with in the absence of a driver.

And mechanics? When the trucks drive themselves, we're going to need more mechanics not fewer. But the amount and type of education required to qualify for the job will be very different from what it is today.



Current politicians and social leaders are not seriously considering these issues, or preparing for it.
Click to expand...
That is no different than it ever was. And yet somehow we managed to survive.
 
SoonerAviator said:
Probably won't mean much. Avg age of vehicles in the US is 12 years old, and average years between new car purchases is less than 7 years. People don't seem to buy new cars because the old one is worn out, it likely has less than 85K miles on it. People buy new cars because they want whatever is new/fancy, suits their new lifestyle, or they just get bored with it. EVs lasting longer is great and all, but people will still buy new EVs because of updated cosmetics, tech features, or just because they don't want to be seen driving to the country club in their previous body-style model.
Click to expand...

I agree I will not specifically keep my EV's any longer than a traditional car before buying a new car. The body still ages just like any other car. Being a luxury car, it ages faster than most. Closer to a BMW than a Toyota in that way. I can totally see (after 6 years of ownership) that the car body is going to become unappealing long before the drivetrain does.

However, used car sales outnumber new car sales by 3 to 1. And mileage do matter a lot more on used cars. I think the majority of the cars ending up on the scrapyard eventually stop running, or maintenance become more than the car is worth. So that caps out most cars at around 20 to 25 years. Now this part of the equation could very well change with EV's. Maybe. Who knows. But if some segment of people drive used cars longer, it will in turn drive down trade-in values, with the effect is that another segment of people would drive new cars longer than they otherwise would have liked to.
 
deonb said:
I agree I will not specifically keep my EV's any longer than a traditional car before buying a new car. The body still ages just like any other car. Being a luxury car, it ages faster than most. Closer to a BMW than a Toyota in that way. I can totally see (after 6 years of ownership) that the car body is going to become unappealing long before the drivetrain does.

However, used car sales outnumber new car sales by 3 to 1. And mileage do matter a lot more on used cars. I think the majority of the cars ending up on the scrapyard eventually stop running, or maintenance become more than the car is worth. So that caps out most cars at around 20 to 25 years. Now this part of the equation could very well change with EV's. Maybe. Who knows. But if some segment of people drive used cars longer, it will in turn drive down trade-in values, with the effect is that another segment of people would drive new cars longer than they otherwise would have liked to.
Click to expand...

Good reason to drive an old classic, their lines never become unappealing :)
 
Self-driving cars already exist, and are used in large numbers now, based on the number of people I see playing with their phones while driving.
 
Numerous posts have been deleted due to the thread being derailed into politics. We will keep it open for now but remember that political discussion is not allowed on POA.
 
Dagnabit I tried to keep my post from being too political, but oh well. And this was my first deleted post by the mods (on any forum)! (I really cannot blame the mods, even if my post was only borderline, there is almost no way a response would have stayed within the bounds).

Tim
 
Back to Tesla. I am stuck at the mall today (taking my youngest to the mall so she can get stuff for camp) and there is a Tesla store there.
They only have the Model X in there. It was funny talking to the salesman (or whatever they call the staff); he was talking about all the gadgets, the cool tech.... A saleswomen then asked me what I drove now, and how much I drove a year. I said I have a 2013 Subaru; and I now drive about 4K miles a year. She said, unless I suddenly change to wanting a luxury vehicle than all this cool tech is wasted. It was rather funny how she was paying attention to the fact all the cool tech does not matter to me since I really do not drive much anymore; and the guy did not.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Back to Tesla. I am stuck at the mall today (taking my youngest to the mall so she can get stuff for camp) and there is a Tesla store there.
They only have the Model X in there. It was funny talking to the salesman (or whatever they call the staff); he was talking about all the gadgets, the cool tech.... A saleswomen then asked me what I drove now, and how much I drove a year. I said I have a 2013 Subaru; and I now drive about 4K miles a year. She said, unless I suddenly change to wanting a luxury vehicle than all this cool tech is wasted. It was rather funny how she was paying attention to the fact all the cool tech does not matter to me since I really do not drive much anymore; and the guy did not.
Click to expand...

I do like when a salesperson pays attention to my needs... OTOH, there have been a lot of sales of Teslas to people for whom it doesn't "make sense" and they love them. So why not? (Purely a rhetorical question.)

Unfortunately, since buying my current house 5 years ago my daily round trip commute has gone from 25 miles (and pretty much zero traffic) to 73 miles and a bunch of traffic. :( Thinking it's high time to bite the bullet and drop the cash on a 3... Now I just have to get my bride to agree! :D
 
Pilots Of America Management said:
Numerous posts have been deleted due to the thread being derailed into politics. We will keep it open for now but remember that political discussion is not allowed on POA.
Click to expand...

tspear said:
Dagnabit I tried to keep my post from being too political, but oh well. And this was my first deleted post by the mods (on any forum)! (I really cannot blame the mods, even if my post was only borderline, there is almost no way a response would have stayed within the bounds).
Click to expand...

Same here! First ever deleted post/warning... And I must apologize, because I posted it in a bit of a fatigued state, and reading it now it came across completely different than I intended. I was meaning to have an interesting conversation around the unintended societal consequences of automation and technology advancement, not a political bashing session. However, I missed one key word that made it look overtly political from one side, so again, I apologize.

@tspear, I sent you a PM to continue that conversation, though considering I was in agreement with you I don't think we're going to go much of anywhere. If anyone else wants to continue that conversation via PM, *especially* those who may have disagreed with what I posted, let me know and I'll add you to the PM thread. I'm interested in ideas and remaining positive. (I almost wish we could have the Spin Zone back for *just this one thread*... ;) )

Anyway... Back to your regularly scheduled EV discussions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top