Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DynamicResonater t1_j20p28n wrote

Reply to comment by MeteorOnMars in Russians did such a good job promoting renewable energy and electric vehicles this year. by darth_nadoma

My best friend, not an educated man, just dumped $60K into a 3500 HD 4x4 truck he uses twice a year to actually haul something. I bought a Tesla that gets used constantly. He gave me static about it and laughed. I asked him how many foot rubs he has to give MBS to fill his tank. No laughs that time.

−1

MeteorOnMars t1_j21mu2x wrote

I bet his truck uses more electricity per mile than your Tesla does (because refining his gas requires electricity).

2

DynamicResonater t1_j257zok wrote

Not only that, but as the low-hanging fruit of easily-accessed oil dries up, it's going to take more and more energy to acquire and refine new sources of oil at higher costs. Like you say, oil requires a hell of a lot of energy to refine.

1

boersc t1_j22orcd wrote

Then again, how is that tesla's electricity made? Coal and other fossil fuels.

−3

ForHidingSquirrels t1_j23szd0 wrote

In the US it’s filled with 45% emission free electricity

2

boersc t1_j248u62 wrote

As it's extra electricity, you can only take into account the variable fuel. Wind and solar are always at their max, whether there are electric cars or not. So, for now, extra electric cars means more fossil fuels burnt.

−1

ForHidingSquirrels t1_j24h3bk wrote

Did you have chatgpt make that up since you’ve got no idea how to respond to reality?

1

boersc t1_j24z50j wrote

Sorry to burst your bubble, but for now this IS reality. Every extra usage of electricity means extra fossil fuels burnt, not extra solar energy or wind.

How else would the extra demand be met? Right now, we don't have a flexible renewable energysource that we can throttle.

In the long run, when we're approaching 100% renewable energy, sure. But for now, the sole benefit of electric cars is that the energy is created at a central place, where it is made more efficiently than in a car.

−1

DynamicResonater t1_j26u6sc wrote

There's such things as energy storage facilities that can be throttled faster and more efficiently than conventional baseline plants. California has several, for instance, and Australia is a world leader in it. Even so, EV's cause less fossil fuels to be burned than a new ICE, you know that right? It sounds like you do, given your last sentence, which somewhat counters your first.

1

DynamicResonater t1_j25bh0p wrote

My power mix in California is:

  • Renewable (Bio/Geo/Hydro/Solar/Wind) = 33.6%
  • Large Hydro = 9.2%
  • Nuclear = 9.3
  • Other = 7%
  • Natural Gas = 37.9
  • Coal = 3%

Even if EV's ran only on coal or natural gas they would still be far cleaner than ICE vehicles. Sorry, but I've seen your argument dozens of times and it's been refuted repeatedly by legitimate scientific organizations.

1

burning_legiion t1_j23dakb wrote

Tesla's are shit compaired to ACTUAL car companies, the quality is absolutely subpar for the cost. If somebody like, say, VW, or Toyota, wanted to make an actual electric vehicle, whether it be for the masses or the rich, they would do it much better in much less time than it took Tesla to do it.
That said, only EVs are NOT the answer, as they as well require a hell of a lot of energy, and that would drive up the prices as well. Not mentioning the cost of manufacturing, the battery replacement/storage problem, etc.

−1

DynamicResonater t1_j258pj4 wrote

I'll agree with you that Tesla's QC could be better, but I've seen far worse from the Big 3. Just FYI: Toyota and VW both make EV's and they're not that great, certainly not better than Tesla. I agree that EV only is not the answer, we'll likely need syn-fuels, and H2 to fill the gap until EV's are ready to replace ICE's completely, which is very likely based on the current state of battery research still in the lab. You might want to do more research on EV's so you're more up to speed before commenting.

1

burning_legiion t1_j26d3yg wrote

What I'm saying is that IF the established large car manufacturers actually wanted to switch to all EV, they would make a much better car than Tesla very quickly, it's just a fact for obvious reasons. But it's not their main goal at the moment, and thus the difference. The quality of materials in Tesla for the price is not up to par compared to an actual car manufacturer. Take a BMW for the same price as you paid that Tesla, if you can tell me with a straight face that the build quality and assurance of that Tesla is better, then fine, but it's not, and we both know it. But OK, I'm glad you're happy with your purchase either way.
I did my research, ain't getting one in the near future without EVs solving several crucial problems, that's for sure.

1

DynamicResonater t1_j26px0l wrote

I worked at BMW in Munich and was in QC for a while. The problems I've found in my Tesla are minor compared with what was passed off on the assembly line in the Munich 3 series plant. Also, the Model 3 is considered one of the most reliable EV's in the US. Sorry, bro, but your "if-they-only" arguments are worthless in the real world. I'll put my Model 3 against anything in its price class.

1