Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Current Electric Cars
#1
Quote:A Different Aspect About Electric Cars!! 
INTERESTING -  IF ELECTRIC CARS DO NOT USE GASOLINE, THEY WILL NOT PARTICIPATE IN PAYINGA GASOLINE TAX ON EVERY GALLON THAT IS SOLD FOR AUTOMOBILES, WHICH WAS ENACTED SOME YEARS AGO TO HELP TO MAINTAIN OUR ROADS AND BRIDGES. THEY WILL USE THE ROADS, BUT WILL NOT PAY FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE!  WHO WILL BEAR THE BURDEN? 
In case you were thinking of buying hybrid or an electric car: 
Ever since the advent of electric cars, the REAL cost per mile has never been discussed.
All you ever heard was the mpg in terms of gasoline, with not a mention of the cost to run it.
This is the first article I’ve ever seen and tells the story pretty much as I expected it to.
Electricity has to be one of the least efficient ways to power things yet it’s being shoved down our throats. Glad somebody finally put engineering and math to paper.
 At a neighborhood BBQ I was talking to a neighbor, a BC Hydro executiveI asked him how that renewable thing was doing. He laughed, then got serious.
If you really intend to adopt electric vehicles, he pointed out, you had to face certain realities. For example, a home charging system for a Tesla requires 75 amp service. The average house is equipped with 100 amp service. On our small street (approx. 25 homes),the electrical infrastructure would be unable to carry more than three houses with a single Tesla charge.
For even half the homes to have electric vehicles, the system would be wildly over-loaded.
This is the elephant in the room with electric vehicles. Our residential infrastructure cannot bear the load.
 So as our genius elected officials promote this nonsense, not only are we being urged to buy these things and replace our reliable, cheap generating systems with expensive, new windmills and solar cells, but we will also have to renovate our entire delivery system!  This latter "investment" will not be revealed until we're so far down this dead end road that it will be presented with an 'OOPS...!' and a shrug.
If you want to argue with a green person over cars that are eco-friendly, just read the following.
 Note: If you ARE a green person, read it anyway. It’s enlightening.
Eric test drove the Chevy Volt at the invitation of General Motors and he writes,
"For four days in a row, the fully charged battery lasted only 25 miles before the Volt switched to the reserve gasoline engine.” Eric calculated the car got 30 mpg including the 25 miles it ran on the battery.  So, the range including the 9-gallon gas tank and the 16 kwh battery is approximately 270 miles.
It will take you 4.5 hours to drive 270 miles at 60 mph. Then add 10 hours to charge the battery and you have a total trip time of 14.5 hours.  In a typical road trip your average speed (including charging time) would be 20 mph.
 According to General Motors, the Volt battery holds 16 kwh of electricity. It takes a full 10 hours to charge a drained battery.  The cost for the electricity to charge the Volt is never mentioned, so I looked up what I pay for electricity.  I pay approximately (it varies with amount used and the seasons) $1.16 per kwh. 16 kwh x $1.16 per kwh = $18.56 to charge the battery.
$18.56 per charge divided by 25 miles = $0.74 per mile to operate the Volt using the battery.
Compare this to a similar size car with a gasoline engine that gets only 32 mpg.
$3.19 per gallon divided by 32 mpg = $010 per mile.
 The gasoline powered car costs about $20,000 while the Volt costs $46,000-plus.
So the Canadian and American Governments wants loyal citizens not to do the math, but simply pay three times as much for a car, that costs more than seven times as much to run, and takes three times longer to drive across the country. 
Reply
#2
So,,,,,,,, TRUE!!
Excellent article.
Once A Rogue, Always A Rogue!
[Image: attachment.php?aid=936]
Reply
#3
Very good points, add to them that each car will need its own parking place with a charge point, the electrical infrastructure will need to be compleaty rebuilt as it will have to run at a 100% 24/7. Each work place will have to have parking places for there employees as all other parking places will be reserved. All that is needed is for a few distribution centers to be taken off line ( fire , terrorism ect) and a whole city will grind to a halt as no one can travel.
Its stupid beyond words.
Reply
#4
minusculeredtantrum Yeah, we chatted about this in a previous thread HERE

The UK and most of the EU are being forced into electric vehicles by the BANNING of new Petrol/Diesel car sales by 2040.
But the truth is that the infrastructure AND THE VEHICLES THEMSELVES are nowhere near up to the task yet.

And, as Sky pointed out above - there are hidden costs with electric vehicles... The batteries don't last forever and will need replaced every 2 or 3 years at what cost?? (Both financially and environmentally.) What about the disposal of the "used" batteries?? And how do they plan to generate all of the extra electricity involved??? Nuclear Power Stations? More Gas/Coal burning ones???

It is MADNESS in the extreme.

Why does no one mention Hydrogen power anymore?
Hydrogen is the most abundant chemical element in the universe.
It can be easily produced by passing electricity through water (electrolysis) and by other methods like extracting it from natural gas.

When you burn Hydrogen it doesn't give off any "carbon" based emissions, so no "Climate Change" gases.
It can be used in Hydrogen Fuel Cells to generate Electricity, which in turn can drive electric motors without the need for batteries. The fuel cells work by electro-chemically combining hydrogen, stored in a pressurised tank, with air to generate an electric current; the only emission is WATER vapour, which could (of course) be used to regenerate more Hydrogen!
I heard YEARS AGO that every small-time developer/maker of hydrogen fuel cells and hydrogen car prototypes was being taken over or bought up by the big car makers (to suppress the tech and allow gasoline to rule unchallenged).
There are still one or two out there, but HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF THEM??
Every article that I've ever seen about them (and that is only a handful) has been laced with mad-scientist type rhetoric... "Inventor" "dream" etc.

I'll link one of them HERE for you - to prove that I'm not making this all up!! LOL

Thoughts?
G



Reply
#5
I think people will find that the reason that electric power is been pushed so hard is that the ME countries have been buying the mining rights in country's that are rich in the minerals needed to make batteries and electronics for all the new cars. Any one remember OPEC and the 70s, what we are looking at is version 2 of what was done in the 70s.
Reply
#6
An interesting bit of information about making diesels very clean, lets see what TPTB do with this.
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/money/technolo...ailsignout

Bosch Says It's Made a Breakthrough That Can Save Diesel ENGINES

[/url]
HA
[Image: AAwjIIW.img?h=472&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f]© PARobert Bosch GmbH said its engineers have developed a new diesel-exhaust system that cuts emissions far below legal limits taking effect in 2020 and can help automakers avoid potential driving bans in Europe that threaten to doom the engine technology.

“This breakthrough offers the opportunity to shift the heated debate over diesel into new territory and, hopefully, bring it to a close," Bosch Chief Executive Officer Volkmar Denner said Wednesday at a press conference outside Stuttgart.
[Image: AAwjyaR.img?h=410&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f&x=1037&y=117]© Bloomberg Volkmar Denner
Volkmar Denner

The German engineering giant, the biggest supplier of diesel-engine technology to global automakers from Volkswagen AG to General Motors Co. to Fiat Chrysler NV, is stepping up the fight against eroding market share sparked by VW’s 2015 emissions-cheating scandal. While tens of thousands of jobs hinge on the technology, customers are increasingly opting for gasoline engines as cities like Paris and London consider imposing driving bans to improve air quality.

Automakers have relied on diesel to help the industry meet limits on CO2 emissions, a contributor to global warming. But while it emits less CO2 than gasoline-fueled engines, the technology also generates nitrogen oxides that help create harmful smog, a problem most acute in big cities.

Bosch’s new process optimizes thermal management of exhaust temperatures, slashing nitrogen oxide emissions to one-tenth of the legally permitted limit, and doesn’t require new hardware, Denner said. The system keeps emissions stable even at cold temperatures, he said.

[Image: AAwjC6F.img?h=433&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f]© Bloomberg“With this new exhaust technology, blanket driving bans in the centers of the world’s major cities will no longer be an issue. Why? Because we now have the technology to resolve the problem of nitrogen oxides in road traffic," Denner said.

Bosch’s role as leading global supplier has come under scrutiny as German prosecutors investigate potentially illegal diesel-engine technology used by automakers to pass emission tests. Denner reiterated Bosch fully cooperates with the relevant authorities. He called for more transparency in emission tests for cars with combustion engines as well as electric vehicles to allow a realistic view of the exact impact on the environment and air quality.

He said the company is prohibiting technology that recognizes test cycles and its products aren’t allowed to be optimized for test situations any more. Regulators have stepped up efforts to narrow the gap between official emission labels based on lab tests and real driving emissions.

NOW SEE: [url=https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/dieselgate-leaves-uk%E2%80%99s-car-industry-in-crisis/ar-AAwdwqK?li=BBx1bGE&item=personalization_enabled%3afalse]Dieselgate is killing the UK's car industry

[Image: AAwjKHT.img?h=437&w=728&m=6&q=60&o=f&l=f]
Reply
#7
Yeah, NICE ONE @Wallfire that's an interesting read for sure!
G



Reply
#8
Quote:Tesla posts record $710m net loss as it struggles to produce Model 3 cars.

Elon Musk got testy with analysts amid concerns over company’s future, after it burned
through $745.3m in cash during important quarter.

[Image: attachment.php?aid=3688]

'Tesla posted a record $709.6m net loss in the first quarter and burned through $745.3m in
cash while struggling to crank out large numbers of its Model 3 mass-market electric car.

The loss and cash burn announced on Wednesday raised questions about the company’s future
and whether it would be able to pay all of its bills by early next year without more borrowing or
another round of stock sales.

During a sometimes testy conference call with analysts, Tesla’s CEO, Elon Musk, conceded that
criticism was valid but said it was “quite likely” the company would make money and have positive
cash flow in the third quarter.

“It’s high time we became profitable,” said Musk, who also promised restructuring this month to
achieve profit goals. “The truth is you’re not a real company until you are, frankly.
That’s our focus right now.”

But Tesla investors gave a rare rebuke to Musk after he cut off analysts asking about future profit
potential, sending shares down 5% despite promises that production of the troubled Model 3 electric
car was on track.

Tesla stock was little changed after the earnings announcement but fell during a conference call with
analysts, when Musk began cutting analysts’ questions short, costing Tesla over $2bn in market
capitalization. 

“These questions are so dry. They’re killing me,” Musk said after an analyst asked what percentage of
Tesla 3 reservation holders have started to configure options for their cars, an indicator of how much
profit Tesla will be able to wring from the vehicles. Another analyst asked about a capital requirement
before being cut off.

Musk then took several questions in a row about plans for a self-driving car network and other long-term
projects from the host of a YouTube channel focused on investing, praising the questions as not boring.

Tesla said its net loss amounted to $4.19 per share. Excluding one-time expenses such as stock-based
compensation, the company lost $3.35 per share. Revenue grew by 26% from a year ago to $3.4bn.

The giant loss in a critical quarter for the 15-year-old company fell short of Wall Street estimates.
Analysts polled by FactSet expected an adjusted loss of $3.54 per share. Revenue, however, exceeded
estimates of $3.28bn.

In April, Tesla said it would not need to return to markets for more capital because it expected to generate
cash from sales of the Model 3. But it has had trouble getting them out the door to several hundred thousand
people who put down $1,000 deposits to order one.

Moody’s Investor Service downgraded Tesla’s debt into junk territory back in March, warning at the time that
Tesla didn’t have cash to cover $3.7bn for normal operations, capital expenses and debt that come due early
next year. At the end of last year the company had a total of $9.5bn in long-term debt.

“The negative outlook reflects the likelihood that Tesla will have to undertake a large, near-term capital raise in
order to refund maturing obligations and avoid a liquidity shortfall,” Moody’s wrote in a note to investors.

Tesla has had only two profitable quarters in its nearly eight years as a public company.
The key to raising cash to cover expenses is production of the Model 3 mass-market electric car, which starts
at $35,000 but can easily top $50,000 with options.

Musk said the restructuring would involve getting rid of third-party contractors that have grown out of control.
“We’re going to scrub barnacles on that front,” he said.
He admitted that Tesla made a mistake by adding too much automation too quickly at the factory.

The plant has missed Musk’s forecasts by a wide mark. When production started last summer he promised to
build 20,000 Model 3s during the month of December. Instead, Tesla made only 2,425 during the entire fourth
quarter.

Then Tesla forecast 10,000 Model 3s per month at the end of the first quarter. As it turned out, just under 9,800
were assembled from January through March, Tesla said in April. The Fremont, California, factory was shut down
for four or five days last month to clear production bottlenecks, Tesla said.

The company, which also makes solar panels, predicted in April that production would climb rapidly through the
second quarter and reach about 5,000 vehicles per week – which would return Tesla to its originally promised
20,000 per month rate – around the end of June. It predicted high sales and strong cash flow in the third quarter.

“As a result Tesla does not require an equity or debt raise this year, apart from standard credit lines,” the company
said.
The Model 3 is the most important piece of Tesla’s plan to become a mainstream automaker.
At one point it had more than 500,000 potential buyers on a waiting list. But in April the company conceded that
some had cancelled, although it refused to give numbers. Tesla said reservations “remained stable” through the
first quarter.

Tesla has had only two profitable quarters in its nearly eight years as a public company...'
The Guardian:


Attached Files Thumbnail(s)
   
[Image: attachment.php?aid=953]
Reply
#9
(05-03-2018, 09:30 PM)BIAD Wrote:
Quote:Tesla posts record $710m net loss as it struggles to produce Model 3 cars.

Elon Musk got testy with analysts amid concerns over company’s future, after it burned
through $745.3m in cash during important quarter...
The Guardian:

ooops! LOL



Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)