Cars, cars and more cars. And trucks, and....

[Archimid]

Things change. Everything changes. Power sources that are ubiquitous today didn't exist 100 years ago. In a hundred years either we switched to renewables or there is no civilization. 

A thousand mile journey begins with a single step.

 Switching to renewables pose many challenges, specially closer to the poles where low solar and winter are a horrible combination. But everything worth doing is difficult.  Much can be done with current technology and costs. The only thing missing is the will to do it.

"we just need to choose green, and we can basically keep doing everything the same as we are now...it will actually be cheaper. skip a dee doo, skip a dee day!"(SARCASM)

 No one is saying that we can do everything the same but green. Some things we can do the same but green, transportation is one of them. Other things, like agricultural emissions and plastics, require significant changes. Your "sarcasm" is very weak.

I still fail to see your solution to the problem, only whining that it can't done. I also haven't seen your acknowledgement that you lied and EV's indeed have a much lower life cycle emissions than ICE's.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Things change. Everything changes. Power sources that are ubiquitous today didn't exist 100 years ago. In a hundred years either we switched to renewables or there is no civilization. 

A thousand mile journey begins with a single step.

 Switching to renewables pose many challenges, specially closer to the poles where low solar and winter are a horrible combination. But everything worth doing is difficult.  Much can be done with current technology and costs. The only thing missing is the will to do it.

"we just need to choose green, and we can basically keep doing everything the same as we are now...it will actually be cheaper. skip a dee doo, skip a dee day!"(SARCASM)

 No one is saying that we can do everything the same but green. Some things we can do the same but green, transportation is one of them. Other things, like agricultural emissions and plastics, require significant changes. Your "sarcasm" is very weak.

I still fail to see your solution to the problem, only whining that it can't done. I also haven't seen your acknowledgement that you lied and EV's indeed have a much lower life cycle emissions than ICE's.

Based on that one study? Are you joking? I have told you why I don't think the study is robust. I've been very specific. IT IS NOT A LIE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.

What is actually lacking is an explanation from you is how "If the $10,000 is produced with renewable energy and the $1,000 is produced with diesel then the 10,000 item will have less emissions. If the 10,000 item weighs 1 kilo but the 1,000 item weighs 2 kilos then the 2 kilo one has more emissions, unless the manufacturing process is really low emission," makes any sense if there is not actually any genuinely low emissions manufacturing. BUT OF COURSE YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED THAT. YOU CAN'T!!! It doesn't make sense, so instead you obfuscate by talking about how one day it will be possible to have lower emissions energy generation. THAT IS NOT WHAT WERE DISCUSSING. We were talking about the methodology for determining emission of manufacturing that were used in the study that you like to cite and then say that it proves I'm lying. You can't use a theoretical future low emissions manufacturing technology to validate a current study's methodology. YOU LIE. And more importantly, when I show you that your position doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny, you respond with pathetic platitudes like "A thousand mile journey begins with a single step." and "everything worth doing is difficult."

And I have replied to you specifically about "solutions", and I have never whined that it can't be done. I believe a steep carbon tax and payments for sequestration will do the trick. However, when I describe what I think this will look like (95%+ less transportation, manufacturing of only durable goods, localized food production) YOU WHINE that I am describing genocide.  I wish duels were still customary.

[Archimid]

Based on that one study? Are you joking? I have told you why I don't think the study is robust. I've been very specific. IT IS NOT A LIE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU.

lie: an intentionally false statement.

EVs produce less lifetime emissions than ICEs. TRUE

ICE produce less lifetime emissions than EVs. FALSE

Your position is false. Is it intentional?

You are repeating quantifiable false statement. You have been given evidence that it is a false statement. Your argument involves some simplistic notion of using the energy cost of money as a basis for CO2 emissions. You are either stupid or you lie.

BUT OF COURSE YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED THAT. YOU CAN'T!!

Wooosh. It went right over your head. Let me put it another way. Maybe you are slow.

If the $10,000 is produced with renewable energy and the $1,000 is produced with diesel then the 10,000 item will have less emissions.

Assuming the same energy source and same materials,  if the 10,000 item weighs 1 kilo but the 1,000 item weighs 2 kilos then the 2 kilo one has more emissions.

makes any sense if there is not actually any genuinely low emissions manufacturing

You lie.

https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/audi-begins-production-of-e-tron

The all-electric SUV will be built at the manufacturer’s Brussels plant, which has become the first CO2-neutral factory for a premium brand by offsetting the emissions produced in production by using energy from renewable sources – such as solar and wind power.

We were talking about the methodology for determining emission of manufacturing that were used in the study that you like to cite and then say that it proves I'm lying.

It proves you are lying because the methodology is as robust as it can get without the actual internal papers of thousands of cars and component manufacturers over the world.

Breaking down the materials into estimated emissions is a very good way to generalize it. Very obviously these are generalizations, but they are very well done and match the theoretical expectations. 

You can't use a theoretical future low emissions manufacturing technology to validate a current study's methodology.

HUH? What are you talking about? The emissions assumptions used by the study are based on data collected by the argonne national lab, GREET model, not future technology.

you respond with pathetic platitudes like "A thousand mile journey begins with a single step." and "everything worth doing is difficult."

Here is another one, those who say it can't be done shouldn't interrupt those who are doing it.

And I have replied to you specifically about "solutions"

Yeah yeah, you want to force everyone to live in 2 acres and grow their own food. Nicolas Maduro is that you?

and I have never whined that it can't be done.

Good good. So now we are getting somewhere. If we work really hard we can switch most of the world's energy consumption to non emitting sources and save our civilization. I'm glad that you agree.

Now instead of whining about Elon Musk and lying about electric cars post something useful.

[Sigmetnow]

MEPs vote for a faster shift to electric cars
September 10, 2018

The European Parliament's environment committee today signalled the Parliament's support for ambitious CO2 standards for new cars and vans in 2030 and comprehensively rejected the Commission’s inadequate proposal just a month before the full Parliament votes. European NGO federation Transport & Environment (T&E) welcomes the vote as a step towards a more rapid transition to electric vehicles, but warns that the renewed ambition falls short of what is needed to meet Europe’s Paris climate commitments. ...

https://www.transportenvironment.org/press/meps-vote-faster-shift-electric-cars

—-
Top Five Fastest Selling Used Cars Are All Hybrid And Electric

iSeeCars analyzed a whopping four million late-model vehicles to determine which cars sell the slowest, as well as which cars sell the fastest. As it turns out, the top five quick-selling cars were all electrified and each only took about a month or so to sell.
Yes, we don’t generally cover traditional hybrids at InsideEVs, but honestly, that’s really not even an issue, since only a few of the best-sellers are such (and both are variants of the Toyota Prius, which arguably paved the way for where we are today with EV adoption). Let’s take a look at the study’s results:

The top five fastest-selling used cars are all hybrid and electric vehicles:
Days on Market (Avg.)
Toyota Prius C – 29.6
Tesla Model S – 32.4
BMW i3 – 33.4
Toyota Prius – 33.4
Chevrolet Volt – 34.3 

https://insideevs.com/five-fastest-selling-used-cars-hybrid-electric/

—-
ouch!
Reuters Business (@ReutersBiz). 9/11/18, 9:16 AM

JUST IN: A hard #Brexit would cost £1.2 billion, wiping out profit and harming electric vision - Jaguar Land Rover CEO

https://twitter.com/reutersbiz/status/1039502852702568453

—-
Porsche to Take Control of Bugatti, Bentley, and Lamborghini: Report

The VW Group is reportedly planning to restructure the hierarchy of its premium brands
Porsche could soon be placed in a position where it would have to oversee the cash flow and other operations of fellow upscale Volkswagen Auto Group (VAG) marques Bentley, Lamborghini, and Bugatti.

http://www.thedrive.com/news/23498/porsche-to-take-control-of-bugatti-bentley-and-lamborghini-report

[GoSouthYoungins]

You lie.

https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/audi-begins-production-of-e-tron

The all-electric SUV will be built at the manufacturer’s Brussels plant, which has become the first CO2-neutral factory for a premium brand by offsetting the emissions produced in production by using energy from renewable sources – such as solar and wind power.

Good good. So now we are getting somewhere. If we work really hard we can switch most of the world's energy consumption to non emitting sources and save our civilization. I'm glad that you agree.

hahahhahahahaha. you think that audi plant is carbon-neutral like they claim or even low emissions?!?!? wtf is wrong with you? every step of the car building processes uses tons of fossil fuels. audi paying for some wind and solar does NOT make the manufacturing of a vehicle take any less energy. it would be like murdering 10 ppl and then having 10 babies and calling it murder neutral. it is honestly sad that you are tricked by such simple lies. have you ever heard anything that you liked but didn't think was true? i doubt it...you are every marketing departments dream, a true sucker.

"switching" energy sources, but maintaining the same life style WILL NOT WORK. Even if it causes only have as much emissions (which I seriously doubt), it is still way way too much emissions. as more and more people live on earth and as more and more of them become middle class consumers, even a quarter of the emissions of a western lifestyle is way too much. we have to reduce the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs, but just slightly slow the increase.

it should be exceedingly obvious that the only viable solution is pioneering lifestyles that are carbon negative and simultaneously 1st-world-esque.

I never said everyone (or even anyone) has to live on 2 acres. YOU LIAR! And nobody needs to be forced into anything, at least not directly...proper carbon accounting would make the changes desirable to individuals based on market pressures.

[oren]

GSY, most people understand that the current method of combating AGW - namely, doing almost nothing - is not enough. But repeating that ad nauseum in this thread achieves nothing.  There are quite a few threads on this forum discussing the impossibility of "Green BAU", and the pros and cons of working towards it even if it is impossible. Look for older posts by JimD, to name but one such poster. But in any case, I think this is not the place as it constantly derails the discussion.

As to your specific argument - are you claiming that manufacturing an EV, except for the battery, emits more emissions than manufacturing a similar-sized ICE car? If you are, I think you are wrong. If you aren't claiming that, please stop arguing about it.
Please refer to the basic Model 3 and Chevy Volt in your response, and not to a $100k car.
Note that the study in question assumes roughly the same emissions, and then adds the emissions for manufacturing the battery. IMHO, this is actually a severe assumption, as an ICE car has a lot more components and moving parts than an EV.

[Archimid]

audi paying for some wind and solar does NOT make the manufacturing of a vehicle take any less energy.

Duh. Adding energy sources does not reduce consumption. No one has claimed what you claim I claimed. You imagined it and wrote so you have something to whine about.

Adding renewables makes the energy sources much cleaner. And if the factory has periods of time when they must use carbon sources of energy they offset them but generating extra energy for use by others who in turn will be generating less emissions.  As batteries become cheaper offsetting will be needed less and actual reneable power usage will increase.

"switching" energy sources, but maintaining the same life style WILL NOT WORK.

I guess you have comprehension problems. It will work for some things like transportation, but not others like the use of plastics or agricultural runoff.

I never said everyone (or even anyone) has to live on 2 acres. YOU LIAR!

https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,438.msg167948.html#msg167948

37 billion land acres on earth. Half is considered habitable by traditional methods, (I think much more is actually habitable with human management). But lets say just under half, so 18 billion acres. You think a family of 4 needs 72 acres to survive? Estimates by people who actually grow their own food come out to 2 acres. 36 times less. Are the other 70 acres for solar panels and your garage full of teslas (the apparent foundation of life)?

The thing about lying all the time is that eventually you believe your own lies. Your solution is a complete fantasy that does not work unless you militarily dictate that people has to move. If you do that it is genocide.

The way out is through technology, good governance and planning. Musk and the people of Tesla are certainly doing their part. So are many scientists, corporations and citizens. Government is dragging their feet. Now is up to us to make sure governance and planning allows the technologies to transition away from fossil fuels.

With people like you lying and sabotaging the efforts to create technologies and solutions the problem becomes more difficult. But I suspect you know that and you do this with all the bad intentions possible. Fool. Climate change is real and it will affect you regardless of who or where you are.

[Sigmetnow]

Tesla is releasing more battery capacity and giving free Supercharging to owners in Hurricane Florence’s path

“We are temporarily enabling your car to access additional battery capacity, as well as free Supercharging, in preparation for Hurrican Florence. We hope this gives you the peace of mind to get to a safe location, and will notify you before returning your car to its original configuration in mid-October. Badging on your display may adjust during this period. Safe travels.”

https://electrek.co/2018/09/12/tesla-releasing-more-battery-capacity-free-supercharging-hurricane-florence/

And for other/all EVs:
Resource for EV Drivers Affected by Hurricane Florence
http://pluginsites.org/resource-for-ev-drivers-affected-by-hurricane-florence/


And for everyone else:  Remember, no electricity to charge an EV means no electricity to run gas pumps, either.

[Sigmetnow]

“We need higher profits to finance our future.  Four percent is a minimum, 5 percent to 6 percent allow for some future investments and with 7 percent to 8 percent we’re crisis-ready.”

VW CEO Warns of Higher Than Expected Electric Car Costs
September 12, 2018, 5:45 AM EDT

Volkswagen AG warned that its ambitious plan to offer an electric version of each model will cost more than it estimated, forcing the world’s largest carmaker to deepen an efficiency push to meet the spending demands.

VW had originally earmarked the shift to battery power to cost 20 billion euros ($23 billion). Now Chief Executive Officer Herbert Diess says this won’t suffice, without providing a new figure. The company needs to reduce expenses more to be able to invest in future technology and weather crises, he said.

“The burden for our company, such as the cost of bringing to market electric cars, will be higher than expected,” Diess said in a joint interview with labor head Bernd Osterloh in VW’s internal newsletter. “This is particularly so since some of our competitors have been making more progress.”

Record spending to develop electric cars and the need to keep up with tightening regulation on emissions is weighing on carmakers’ bottom lines. Mercedes-Benz maker Daimler AG, unveiling its first standalone battery car in Stockholm last week, also said its outlays for a model range of 10 fully electric cars by 2022 will be higher than an initial estimate of 10 billion euros. VW, whose Audi brand is showing off the electric e-tron crossover in San Francisco next week, plans to add some 300 plug-in hybrid and battery car versions by 2030. ...

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2018-09-12/vw-ceo-sees-cost-of-electric-car-lineup-as-higher-than-expected?__twitter_impression=true


Edit:
 VW:  Funding not secured.
 

[Sigmetnow]

BMW says that the i3 owners in the program charged they cars with 56% renewable energy versus over 22% of renewable energy use in California.

BMW says EV owners can turn i3 into ‘cash cow’, use more solar power with controllable load tech

The idea is quite simple. Under the program, PG&E can request BMW to delay the charging sessions of BMW i3 owners by up to an hour in order to reduce the load.  Instead, the owners are incentivized to charge for cheaper when renewable energy production is higher.

In return, owners are compensated for the possible inconvenience. For the first trial run, owners received a $1,000 “gift card” at the launch of the program and they were able to get up to $540 more based on how their charging sessions were affected. BMW is actually reducing the rewards for the second round, presumably because they realized that it was a lot of money for what they were asking of the i3 owners.

It’s important to note that owners can easily temporarily opt out of the program before starting a charging session if they absolutely need to charge. But if your car needs to charge, but it’s not urgent, you plug it in and if PG&E needs to offset demand, they will delay it and your car will take up to one more hour to charge.

At the Governor’s Global Climate Action Summit in San Francisco this week, the BMW and PG&E are presenting the results.

They listed the main findings:
- Electric vehicles can help stabilizing the public grid and maximizing the portion of renewables.
- Drivers are willing to change their charging habits in order to align with renewables, given the right messaging and incentives.
- Energy companies can help increase daytime charging with renewables by supporting companies in adding workplace charging.
- Sharing data with other drivers is a motivator for many participants.
- Programmes like ChargeForward improve customers’ understanding of how the grid works, which helps them become more educated energy consumers.
- They found the trial to be successful in saving money for the owners in increasing renewable energy use.

Dr. Joachim Kolling, Head of BMW Group Mobility and Energy Services, said, “Our target is to offer charging power generated with the lowest possible CO2 emissions at most attractive prices to drivers of our electric cars”....

https://electrek.co/2018/09/12/bmw-electric-car-owners-i3-into-cash-cow-controllable-load-technology/

[Archimid]

That's wonderful news. That BMW is doing it is the best part. It indicates that they are taking the transition serious.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Me: Estimates by people who actually grow their own food come out to 2 acres.

Archimid: Yeah yeah, you want to force everyone to live in 2 acres and grow their own food. Nicolas Maduro is that you?

So basically if I say that people don’t need hair to survive, you accuse me of wanting to ban hair and execute those who are found with a hair. You are such intellectually dishonest scum.


Me: The problem with this model is glaring: There is no importance placed of the component manufacturing emissions. If 2 suppliers make an widget for a car that use the materials and amount of those materials, they are considered to have the same emissions value. In reality however, weight is something that is a negative for a vehicle, and a lot of energy actually goes into making things lighter. So Widget A weighs 10 kilos and cost $2000 while widget B weighs 15 kilos and cost $1000. The model used in this study would say that Widget A creates less emissions because it is lighter, when in reality it is the other way around. An extreme example of this is a vehicle like the Pagani Huayra Roadster. This supercar costs about a million dollars because an incredible amount of effort is put into every component to make it as light and functional and beautiful as possible. The study being referenced here would claim that it doesn't take very much energy to create the vehicle, even though that is obviously absurd. It takes about a million dollars worth of energy (and emissions). PRICE is one of the best indicators of emissions.


Archimid: If the $10,000 is produced with renewable energy and the $1,000 is produced with diesel then the 10,000 item will have less emissions. If the $10,000 item weighs 1 kilo but the 1,000 item weighs 2 kilos then the 2 kilo one has more emissions, unless the manufacturing process is really low emission.

Me: [that doesn’t] make any sense if there is not actually any genuinely low emissions manufacturing. in reality 95%+ of manufacturing does not come from renewable energy. And even energy in general, for which renewable energy is not as untenable to use, globally comes 85% from fossil fuels. AND the 15% that does come from renewables is mostly hydro power, which can not really be expanded much since effectively every good river site for damning has already been utilized. Whats remaining of the renewable make up is mostly nuclear which comes with its own problems and I believe is parasitically risky in an increasingly less stable world. So vast majority of energy is fossil fuel energy, and the fast majority of renewable energy cannot/should not be expanded. AND wind and solar are incredibly unsuitable for manufacturing. For example, aluminum manufacturing is abnormally reliant on electricity, and yet there is not a single aluminum factory in the world that primarily uses wind and solar. AND even wind and solar production requires a lot of fossil fuel use up front. Yes, they produce significantly more energy over their life cycle than are used to create them, but most of that energy goes un-utilized and is wasted. AND the quality of the energy is significantly lower (intermittent electricity is effectively very low density and effectively un-store-able whereas fossil fuel energy is dense, transportable, and dispatch-able).

Archimid: You lie.
https://www.carkeys.co.uk/news/audi-begins-production-of-e-tron
“The all-electric SUV will be built at the manufacturer’s Brussels plant, which has become the first CO2-neutral factory for a premium brand by offsetting the emissions produced in production by using energy from renewable sources – such as solar and wind power.”

Me: audi paying for some wind and solar does NOT make the manufacturing of a vehicle take any less energy [or emit less].

Archimid: Duh. Adding energy sources does not reduce consumption. No one has claimed what you claim I claimed. You imagined it and wrote so you have something to whine about.

So basically your argument morphs from one retort to the next. You are such intellectually dishonest scum.


Me: I believe a steep carbon tax and payments for sequestration will do the trick. However, when I describe what I think this will look like (95%+ less transportation, manufacturing of only durable goods, localized food production).

Archimid: Your solution is a complete fantasy.


The whole problem of GHG concentrations has been caused by their not being an accurate price for people polluting the atmosphere to conditions not seen since well before human existed. It is not a huge leap to understand that if prices did reflect the harm and benefit that certain activities resulted in, then the outcome would be to bring levels of GHGs to concentrations conducive to human civilization. But you want to call this genocide because…you are such an intellectually dishonest scum


Oren, why constantly lecture me and never say a word to intellectually dishonest scum like archimid. My guess is because you hope Tesla succeeds and so you are adverse to criticizing Tesla fanbois. That is really really disappointingly weak.  [and no, im not convinced ICE cars take significantly less energy to manufacture than EVs, but I am convinced the differences are not significant enough to be thought of as solutions or honestly even beneficial stop gap measures]

[Archimid]

Oh no! Red and Green. My arguments fall to the power of font colors! LOL

So basically if I say that people don’t need hair to survive, you accuse me of wanting to ban hair and execute those who are found with a hair. You are such intellectually dishonest scum.

Great description. I wonder if you have the capacity to apply that to yourself. Let me see:

Article: Audi creates a Carbon neutral manufacturing plant

Your argument: audi paying for some wind and solar does NOT make the manufacturing of a vehicle take any less energy.

That's a blatant nonsequitor.  It's basic physics. but you create a false argument so you can whine and complain that something can't be done.
 
Your use of color now indicates to me that there may be no malice in you. Only ignorance. You can't even catch yourself doing what you accuse others of doing. That so Trumpish that it confused me. 

So basically your argument morphs from one retort to the next. You are such intellectually dishonest scum.

LOL. You are so blind.

Me: I believe a steep carbon tax and payments for sequestration will do the trick. However, when I describe what I think this will look like (95%+ less transportation, manufacturing of only durable goods, localized food production).

Archimid: Your solution is a complete fantasy.

95% less transportation? How do you implement that without disrupting food production, education, medical care?

Manufacturing only durable goods? How do you ship your durable goods with only 5% transportation?

localized food production? What happens to areas with high population density? What happens when the local corps fail?
 
Nah. Your solution is a fantasy. Well not really a fantasy, if it is implemented it will result in most of the world population disappearing.

While I agree we need a carbon emissions tax, the technologies that will replace the energy needs of a carbon neutral civilization need to be developed and deployed now and as fast as possible.

Colors really? What a disappointment.

[oren]

Oren, why constantly lecture me and never say a word to intellectually dishonest scum like archimid. My guess is because you hope Tesla succeeds and so you are adverse to criticizing Tesla fanbois. That is really really disappointingly weak.  [and no, im not convinced ICE cars take significantly less energy to manufacture than EVs, but I am convinced the differences are not significant enough to be thought of as solutions or honestly even beneficial stop gap measures]

Off-Topic Alert
If I were Archimid I'd quit this personal flame war a long time ago. I personally do not think you lie, though you post a lot of factual errors (IMHO). It's a big difference. And yet I see him mostly responding to your often off-topic and often inaccurate statements, so if you were to stop making them he would probably stop responding. Besides, your tendency to make personal accusations and over-the-top derision (fanbois, hahahaha etc.) is rather irksome, so I'm not surprised when someone is irked.
About the off-topic part, I tend to agree with you about the need to reduce consumption, but I think you are missing the human nature part (greed, not caring about the future, politics, etc.) that currently prevents it, and instead in your anger you blame Tesla and the Musk Cult as if they are what prevents the managed collapse / degrowth / stopping the BAU that you support. They are not, and this is why many of your posts are in the wrong thread and against the wrong targets. I strongly recommend that you (and all other readers) search this forum for "degrowth", "Managed collapse", "Green BAU" and half the older posts by JimD. Countless threads have discussed this. Here are some examples - this is extremely off-topic here, and will be the last time I derail this thread to try and shift you from straying. If you continue the off-topic derailment I will be convinced you do not want to listen.

The Degrowth imperative
Climate Destabilization: Tragedy of the Markets or Imperial Defence ?
BAU until they peal my cold dead hands from it - one of my very own early posts
BAU until they peal my cold dead hands from it - JimD's response

Read these long posts for a start, but even better read the whole threads from beginning to end. I do this from time to time and it's very educational. A lot of the posters have moved on, so you are missing a lot by only reading the new posts every day. If you feel you have something to add, post in those threads to revive their discussion, and leave this thread for narrower discussions of cars and trucks and transportation news.
End Off-Topic Alert

[GoSouthYoungins]

And yet I see him mostly responding to your often off-topic and often inaccurate statements, so if you were to stop making them he would probably stop responding. Besides, your tendency to make personal accusations and over-the-top derision (fanbois, hahahaha etc.) is rather irksome, so I'm not surprised when someone is irked.

90% of everything I have written on these threads are responses to inaccurate statements...

someone claims that a steel manufacturer has converted to using solar...WRONG
someone claims that Tesla has a solid business outlook...WRONG
someone claims that EVs are the remedy for GHG emissions...WRONG
someone claims that Audi plant is carbon neutral...WRONG
someone claims that Tesla going private is logical and likely...WRONG
someone claims that industry is on the cusp of greening...WRONG
someone claims that Musk deserves to be believed...WRONG
someone claims that the Tesla bulls aren't biased...WRONG
someone claims that "$420" wasn't a drug reference...WRONG
someone claims that the $7500 expiring won't hurt Tesla...WRONG
someone claims that all Tesla negative info is FUD...WRONG

these are all as objectively obvious things that I can imagine. to let them go unchallenged is a total disservice to the conversation.

I did not go out on a mission to attack ppl. I have been called a liar, an enemy of humanity, a Big-Oil shill.  Guess what? THAT IRKS ME, and it should not be surprising that I'm going to call out the intellectually dishonest bullshitters for what they are. 

On topic (telsa-thread):  11 of the 23 executives named by Teslarati 4 months ago have now left the company (most recently VP of global finance).  there are widespread and wide ranging issues with model 3 deliveries and quality control.  bond yields continue to rise.  production appears to have slowed to between 3k-4k/wk.  the backlog appears to be largely exhausted, and there is significant surplus of certain variants that are not correlated to any current demand.  IMO, 90% chance Tesla is bankrupt by 4/1/2019 (less than a year after Musk pranked about it for April Fools). "Global shortage of red flags being attributed to Tesla."

[magnamentis]

On topic (telsa-thread):  11 of the 23 executives named by Teslarati 4 months ago have now left the company (most recently VP of global finance).  there are widespread and wide ranging issues with model 3 deliveries and quality control.  bond yields continue to rise.  production appears to have slowed to between 3k-4k/wk.  the backlog appears to be largely exhausted, and there is significant surplus of certain variants that are not correlated to any current demand.  IMO, 90% chance Tesla is bankrupt by 4/1/2019 (less than a year after Musk pranked about it for April Fools). "Global shortage of red flags being attributed to Tesla."

assuming that they're doing their best to hide all bad things, i consider the visible/obvious problems the tip of the iceberg and that's the REAL REASON why i believe and say what i'm saying which is more or less what you are saying.

deep underneath the facade it must be boiling because i'd never quit a well paid job in a soaring startup/business as long as the outlook is intact and business ethics are observed. there must be a reason why the "non-rats" escape the (sinking?) ship while some jump once they see the torpedos coming.

only reason that i can imagine other than the above would be if i have serious issues with the boss on a personal level which i have to admit is a possibility as well, perhaps all are true, who knows.

[Archimid]

sorry Oren. You have indeed warned me to leave this alone and I appreciate the concern. But how can I let these people distort reality? sorry I can’t. If these fossil fuel shills are going to spread lies here I will try to correct them. sometimes I gain knowledge but when they get stuck repeating the same lies there is little to gain. Also ASIF probably hates me for feeding the trolls. 

But what can I do. I can’t just ignore them or block them. Then they will contaminate this forum with their lies. I must face them, when I have the strength. Lies are so much powerful than the truth.

[Sigmetnow]

Less weight — but also less aerodynamic.

Volvo unveils all-electric and autonomous truck without a cab
https://electrek.co/2018/09/13/volvo-all-electric-autonomous-truck-without-a-cab/

[TerryM]

Sorry
But it looks like a sports car that knocked the pins out of a parked trailer & paid a terrible price.
Terry

[GoSouthYoungins]

Less weight — but also less aerodynamic.

Volvo unveils all-electric and autonomous truck without a cab
https://electrek.co/2018/09/13/volvo-all-electric-autonomous-truck-without-a-cab/

Less aerodynamic than what? I image there is a very large amount of "drag" on a product that is supposed to be produced by an insolvent company...

The number of customers who paid in full weeks ago but don't have their cars continues to grow. It appears that some are being held by vendors, possible as collateral for unpaid bills. And a huge number of cars that are attempted to be delivered to customers are being refused due to clear and obvious defects. Quite a few more get accepted, but the new owners soon find problems and are having trouble getting tesla to fix them.  Many, many lots around the country with thousands of Tesla just stored in variable conditions. The assumptions is that they need serious rework and that for liquidity reasons tesla is choosing to do nothing with them accept hold them as collateral. Vendors, suppiliers, creditors not getting paid (or customers who have paid not getting what they have paid for)...the wheels appear to have come off the wagon faster than forecast. 50% chance telsa files before xmas...which is stunning because it is next year when the big bills start coming due.

[etienne]

Sorry
But it looks like a sports car that knocked the pins out of a parked trailer & paid a terrible price.
Terry

LOL, I fully agree, and if you think how powerfull the trailer is, it would probably not require much engineering to transform it in a sports car.

[oren]

GSY, your "Tesla rumors" sound like total BS. Any objective source reporting this?

[GoSouthYoungins]

GSY, your "Tesla rumors" sound like total BS. Any objective source reporting this?

Look at the bonds yields. The only companies that have yields like that have gone bankrupt or are on the edge. That should be proof enough. But...

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-sales-delivery-problems-20180912-story.html

http://www.thedrive.com/news/23588/union-pacific-is-holding-hostage-20-tesla-model-3s-from-owners-awaiting-delivery-report

https://electrek.co/2018/09/09/tesla-model-3-immediate-deliveries-first-come-first-served-basis/

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/09/13/elon-musk-vows-to-fix-teslas-nightmare-customer-response/

https://pilotonline.com/business/consumer/article_f5219417-d4a7-530c-9f88-63ecdd745a9a.html

https://www.ft.com/content/9c6b3468-b863-11e8-b3ef-799c8613f4a1

And now apparently Debtwire (expensive subscription-based analytics company, you won't be able to read) has an article out on tesla. Debtwire only covers distressed debt.

https://twitter.com/Paul_M_Huettner/status/1040686372468731906

When will you people come to your senses are readjust what you interpret as BS?!?

[GoSouthYoungins]

Tesla Bulls...you are in good company.

“Tony Byrd, in charge of guitars, keyboards and Kool-Aid”

“I don’t have anything green on!”

“You lick me, I lick you”

[oren]

GSY, you write this:

The number of customers who paid in full weeks ago but don't have their cars continues to grow. It appears that some are being held by vendors, possible as collateral for unpaid bills. 

When asked for a source, you post a bunch of links, as if that settles it. I clicked and this is what I found:

So the Salt Lake City Service Center had 20 cars shipped via the Union Pacific Railroad. This is their first (and last) time doing this. My car happens to be in that shipment. Apparently the rail yard security won't allow Tesla to retrieve the cars. They've been here for a week.

My original delivery date was Sept 1st. Then it was bumped to Sept 8th because it hadn't left Fremont. Then, it was bumped to the 15th because of the train yard. And now the date has been removed until further notice because they can't get the rail to release the cars and don't know when they will.

This implies nothing of the tall statements you wrote earlier. Delivering thousands of cars a week, a few get lost or stuck in beaurocracy, the company is aware and trying to improve.

Some of your other links (LA, FT) I can't access from here. But to back tall claims you need more than just a link. Why not quote relevant paragraphs?

The only fact you wrote is that the bond yields are high. Indeed, this implies high risk but certainly not a 50% chance of bankruptcy by year-end.

As a general comment, I can't believe a science forum has fallen to this level. This thread has become so muddied because of lack of moderation. Rumor mongering, over-the-top repetitive derision, constant off-topic posts, hogging the thread for no good reason, all of these should not be allowed. If I were Neven, I would have put you on moderation a long time ago, and not because your opinions go against my opinioms (whatever they may be). Because you are disrupting a good discussion.

[Neven]

I'm sorry, guys, I unsubscribed from this discussion last week. I find it difficult to moderate this, because I'm somewhat torn on the subject myself and have trouble processing all the propaganda.

I don't want to kick off GSY just for this, even though I agree his style is provocative and as sceptical as he may seem, he doesn't apply the same sceptical standards to the stuff he posts (sometimes backing up statements, sometimes not). But I don't want to moderate and pre-approve his comments either, because I just don't have the time for that.

If I were him, I'd make my point and then just wait for the truth to sink in, occasionally re-iterating my point. There's no sense in posting endless sarcastic rants.

Maybe I should open a separate Tesla thread after all, where people can just post the pro/contra PR stuff and articles, etc, with no discussions on veracity.* The general discussion about the future of EVs can then still take place here.

For instance, what happens if Tesla fails? Who in the auto industry will try and take its place? Or do we get the EV-1 scenario all over again?



---
* Yes, that's what I'll do.

[Neven]

Okay, there's a new Tesla glory/failure thread for posting articles mainly. This thread is for general discussions on EVs (again).

I hope this works. Fingers crossed. 

[Sigmetnow]

Okay, there's a new Tesla glory/failure thread for posting articles mainly. This thread is for general discussions on EVs (again).

I hope this works. Fingers crossed. 

Thanks, Neven.  Even if I did just have to re-edit two planned posts.

[Sigmetnow]

"The WLTP approval tests have confused production at VW. Now even the sale of the top model is stalled."
VW stops Golf production due to lack of demand
https://amp.handelsblatt.com/unternehmen/industrie/autohersteller-vw-stoppt-golf-produktion-wegen-mangelnder-nachfrage/23063256.html

VW to stop making the iconic Beetle in 2019
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/vw-to-stop-making-the-iconic-beetle-in-2019/

—-

Nissan exits Europe's compact car segment
Nissan is ending sales of two compact cars in Europe and Russia, citing a consumer swing away toward utilities in the segment.

Nissan stopped building the Pulsar hatchback for Europe in June and will end production of the Almera sedan in Russia later this year, the company said.
The decision was made in response to "a rapidly increasing switch by European customers from traditional vehicle segments to crossovers," Nissan said in a statement. "The story in Russia is similar," a spokesman said. The electric Leaf is the only remaining non-SUV compact car sold by Nissan in Europe.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20180912/COPY01/309129961/nissan-exits-europes-compact-car-segment

—

“People are sick and tired in Europe of small cars with poor performance engines. Tired of paying 7$ a gallon . Tired of crazy taxes they pay for those small boxes . When [a well-respected EV maker ] puts the foot in Europe properly then Asia the support encountered will be unseen .”
https://twitter.com/florindoc2003/status/1039885612524990464

[Sigmetnow]

When “oilprice.com” is posting articles like this, it’s clear they see the electric revolution is inevitable.

EV Revolution Could Wipe Out $21 Trillion In Oil Revenue

In oil, Aurora Energy Research predicts that revenues could fall from US$1.5 trillion in 2016 to US$1.1 trillion in 2040 on the back of fast EV adoption combined with major improvements in energy efficiencies. Meanwhile, oil prices could plummet to as little as US$32 a barrel.

This is what could happen under a “Burnout” scenario developed by the research firm that envisages fast growth in EV adoption and equally fast growth in electricity demand on the back of digital tech use driven by the expansion of the Internet of Things.

Under this scenario that might as well be called “Doomsday” as far as it concerns the oil industry, Aurora Research sees the number of EVs on the roads in 2040 at 540 million. For context, another research, from 2016, saw the total number of cars on the road in that year at 2 billion, so EVs would be a pretty solid portion of the total.

As a result of the advent of EVs, crude oil demand will peak long before 2040, in the mid-2020s. By 2040, oil prices will have fallen to US$32. Coal will be doing even worse, with a ton selling for just US$28 thanks to the increased use of low-carbon power generation capacity replacing coal power plants.

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/EV-Revolution-Could-Wipe-Out-21-Trillion-In-Oil-Revenue.amp.html


This one references the Bloomberg New Energy Finance study:
EVs Could Erase 7 Million Bpd In Demand
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/EVs-Could-Erase-7-Million-Bpd-In-Demand.html

[Sigmetnow]

Up from 54,000 today.

ChargePoint pledges to deploy 2.5 million electric vehicle charge points by 2025
https://electrek.co/2018/09/14/chargepoint-million-electric-vehicle-charge-points-2025/

Earlier this year, the company said that it now delivers 8 GWh of electricity in over 1 million electric car charges per month.

[TerryM]

Up from 54,000 today.

ChargePoint pledges to deploy 2.5 million electric vehicle charge points by 2025
https://electrek.co/2018/09/14/chargepoint-million-electric-vehicle-charge-points-2025/

Earlier this year, the company said that it now delivers 8 GWh of electricity in over 1 million electric car charges per month.

Or almost enough energy to allow 1 Tesla Semi to go from Fremont California to Chicago Illinois, then back home to Fremont, per month.
2 KWh/1mile, or 8GWh/4k mile - per Elon Musk.
 Fremont to Chicago = 2,150 miles


If ChargePoint increases it's GWh output as rapidly as it promises to increase it's outlets, by 2025 they will be delivering 20GWh/month. This would allow one Tesla spec. semi to travel 10,000 miles/month.
So by 2025 1 ESemi could drive from Fremont California to Vancouver, then on to St Johns NFL, then back to Vancouver - each month.

That's a lot of electricity to move freight that could have been put on about 1/4 of a flat bed rail car.

Terry

[wehappyfew]

Terry, you're off by a factor of 1000 again.

8 GWh = 8,000,000 kWh ... not 8,000 kWh

Therefore 8 GWh is enough for one Tesla semi to travel 4 million miles.

[Sigmetnow]

Norwegian politicians no longer focused on hydrogen cars. It is a big change since 2016, when all political parties supported hydrogen. Tone now is hydrogen “not viable” and EVs “obvious choice”, as reported by business news site E24 today.

https://twitter.com/m_xalher/status/1040923074714132485

http://e24.no/makro-og-politikk/bil/flere-partier-snur-om-hydrogenbiler-foretrekker-elbil/24441516

Via Google Translate:

According to Dagsavisen , it is only two years since the Right, the Frp, the Left and the KrF announced that they wanted a nationwide network of hydrogen stations. Now the tone is another from KrF's Hans Fredrik Grøvan.

"KrF believes it is important to invest in electric cars in the years to come. The hydrogen car has not proven to be as viable in today's market, he says.
Hyundai first started selling hydrogen cars in Norway before 2015 , before the infrastructure was built

—-
Prof Ray Wills (@ProfRayWills)9/15/18, 5:44 AM
EV growth is ramping fast: simpler tech, simpler build than #hybrids
Hybrid around for >decade, hasn't broken out, so logically soon redundant
#PHEV already eclipsed by #BEV - and is still an ICE hybrid
BEVs will outsell hybrids this year!
Last call on ICE + ICE hybrid 2025
https://twitter.com/profraywills/status/1040899261280378880
Image below.

—-
Audi already advertising e-tron electric SUV ahead of the launch event
https://electrek.co/2018/09/15/audi-advertising-e-tron-electric-suv/

‘starting price of €80,000’ in Germany, and a more ‘realistic’ range of ~250 miles [400km] after updating the figure from the NEDC standard.

—-
Conserving water!
9/14/18, 2:29 PM
Who washes their car in a hurricane? 
https://twitter.com/conservativeptz/status/1040668955646611457
Video at the link.

[GoSouthYoungins]

hey sigmetnow, did petrol burnt for transport go down during the time periods you are discussing? if not, STFU, and stop hoping/pretending that it is all finally working

"but, it is all ramping so so fast." YA, NO SHIT!!! A NEGLIGIBLE PART OF THE ECONOMY CAN SHIFT REALLY FAST. it does not matter

[oren]

hey sigmetnow, did petrol burnt for transport go down during the time periods you are discussing? if not, STFU, and stop hoping/pretending that it is all finally working

"but, it is all ramping so so fast." YA, NO SHIT!!! A NEGLIGIBLE PART OF THE ECONOMY CAN SHIFT REALLY FAST. it does not matter

If it doesn't matter, why post so many tesponses about it?
And what's with the language (STFU)??

[GoSouthYoungins]

hey sigmetnow, did petrol burnt for transport go down during the time periods you are discussing? if not, STFU, and stop hoping/pretending that it is all finally working

"but, it is all ramping so so fast." YA, NO SHIT!!! A NEGLIGIBLE PART OF THE ECONOMY CAN SHIFT REALLY FAST. it does not matter

If it doesn't matter, why post so many tesponses about it?
And what's with the language (STFU)??

None of my post purport to be about something they are not. so no, im not interested in STFup; i would rather continue to call out those who claim to support an inherently false premise. good day

[Tor Bejnar]

Sustainable Tallahassee sponsored an Electric Car Expo in a church (not mega-church) parking lot today. 

There were 30 or 40 e- and plug-in cars (8 Model 3s), a "truck" (max 25mph vehicle with a flat bed), a city bus, and bicycles, and plenty of folks oohing and awing. 

I stayed late and got a ride in a Model S that seats seven - the owner showed off the acceleration and self-driving capacity of the vehicle; his wife called right at the end of the trip, knowing he'd been out for a drive, cause her phone told her so (It's actually her car.).  A fellow from a factory in Montgomery, AL showed up whose factory makes part of the radiator-like battery cooling system (the ~4" wide metal fins with internal tubes that run the length of the battery pack, so that every cell can be chilled - I remember this from a video posted somewhere up-thread).  He came in a Ford C-Max plug-in hybrid (which I'd never heard of).  One man's Chevy Volt had an inverter plugged in with a fan blowing (it's like 97F here now); another had his Model 3 decked out with an air mattress (non-Tesla) laid out in the back (back seat folded down) and surfboard on top (surfboard reduces mileage by 8%) and said he has stayed at a campground, plugged in, and ran his A/C all night.  The two men with Rad Power bikes said is was by far the best on the market, and less expensive than some, and referred to advice from a local bike shop that services them. One owner 'couldn't wait for a Model 3' and bought a used Model S ('half the sticker price') for his 60-mile (one way) daily commute (we talked about China after I saw his CD favorites included Chinese children's music).  Several of the Volt owners had purchased their cars used, as well.

Thank you, Sustainable Tallahassee!

[litesong]

Seven Reasons Why The Internal Combustion Engine Is A Dead Man Walking.....

Yeah. Lotsa people talking about batt negatives, but improvements are coming rapidly. But no one complains about the wonderfully efficient electric motor...... & how sweetly these motors are being constructed. All ya have ta do, is watch internet or YouTube & the excellent, rapid precision of stator & large motor & vehicle frame constructs & assemblies. Watch Chinese, European, Tesla, Audi, BMW, Hyundai, & Nissan Vids to see the various approaches of robot & personnel integration to put together excellent EV vehicles. 

[Archimid]

Audi CO2-Neutral Automobile Production Explained

[GoSouthYoungins]

Yeah. Lotsa people talking about batt negatives, but improvements are coming rapidly.

Did you write this in the 1980s? Solar and wind have also been about to break onto the scene in a big way, lol.

[oren]

Seeing as how wind and solar combined have surpassed hydro in your graphic, I think they already broke into the scene, though not in a big way (yet).

[GoSouthYoungins]

Seeing as how wind and solar combined have surpassed hydro in your graphic, I think they already broke into the scene, though not in a big way (yet).

DAMN. Is that what you see when you look at that graphic? This is even more of an uphill battle than I could have imagined.

[TerryM]

Terry, you're off by a factor of 1000 again.

8 GWh = 8,000,000 kWh ... not 8,000 kWh

Therefore 8 GWh is enough for one Tesla semi to travel 4 million miles.

J. H. Christ on a Crutch!


KMG --- KMG --- KMG ---KMG ---KMG


I'll write the next 95 on the blackboard before class is over - I promise.


Thanks again guys, can't imagine why I keep ignoring that "M" between the "K" & "G".
I did the same thing at a dinner this evening. Now I've about a dozen egg heads to apologize to.


Terry

[Neven]

if not, STFU

I don't have a problem with your opinions, but if you don't want things to escalate, you need to put more thought into your style. It would also make your arguments more convincing.

And when I say 'you don't want things to escalate', I mean I don't want things to escalate. I want to be able to unsubscribe from threads without having to coming back again within 48 hours.

[GoSouthYoungins]

if not, STFU

I don't have a problem with your opinions, but if you don't want things to escalate, you need to put more thought into your style. It would also make your arguments more convincing.

And when I say 'you don't want things to escalate', I mean I don't want things to escalate. I want to be able to unsubscribe from threads without having to coming back again within 48 hours.

noted. apologies.

can you chime in occasionally when accusations of shilling for Big Oil get thrown around, or is that seen as valid? I think calling ppl trolls when they are not trolling is an escalation. I think calling people paid shills is an escalation.

[Neven]

can you chime in occasionally when accusations of shilling for Big Oil get thrown around, or is that seen as valid? I think calling ppl trolls when they are not trolling is an escalation. I think calling people paid shills is an escalation.

If it happens too often, I will. But I'm not a policeman.

OK, back on-topic. What would a Tesla filing or bankruptcy mean for EVs? Would someone step in, or would we get another EV-1 scenario?

[GoSouthYoungins]

can you chime in occasionally when accusations of shilling for Big Oil get thrown around, or is that seen as valid? I think calling ppl trolls when they are not trolling is an escalation. I think calling people paid shills is an escalation.

If it happens too often, I will. But I'm not a policeman.

OK, back on-topic. What would a Tesla filing or bankruptcy mean for EVs? Would someone step in, or would we get another EV-1 scenario?

I think there could be significant enough damage to the brand that Tesla may cease to exist. The gigafactory will get bought by somebody, cuz batteries will continue to get more and more important. Not sure if it will be auto related though. The Fremont plant will probably go idle for a while. The supercharger network is the most curious asset. I have no idea.

Tesla has about the same market cap that Enron did. I wouldn't be surprised to see a Tesla bankruptcy burst the global everything bubble. Does the world order survive? Does china lead a new coalition to challenge the West with a gold/silver backed money system? Would there be any hope of addressing climate change with china in the drivers seat? I doubt it. I think we have to hope that we are all totally in the dark, platos cave style, and that some secret group rules everything and tricks us all about everything. But, I doubt it.

[oren]

If Tesla goes bankrupt now, the big auto companies will try to re-bury EVs. And might succeed too. If it goes bankrupt in 2-3 years, re-burial should be impossible.

[Archimid]

If Tesla goes bankwupt then the advent of the electric car decelerates. The genie is out of the bottle, EV's are better than ICEV's. The world will continue slowly moving in that direction, but not fast enough.

Without Tesla carving automotive market share across all automotive segments car companies will take their time to bring to the market very large volumes of EVs. Someone may eventually emerge as a clear leader and push the rest of the pack, but it will be years before anyone has the EV production capacity Tesla has.

China would certainly have a commanding lead in battery production, but their lack of automotive influence in the west means world wide EV adoption will be one sided for a couple of very vital years.

Also battery adoption for home, comercial, industrial and grid use will slow down.

The difference between the bankwuptcy scenario and the scenario I expect is that the pressure Tesla is placing across automotive and energy markets should generate innovation and an acceleration of the transition away from fossil fuels.

I don't think the Arctic is saved on either scenario and unless geoengineering is used, civilization collapses anyway.

However, the more homes with their own power source, the more resilient we become. The more communities set up with renewable microgrids, the more diversified the risk. The more comercial and government buildings that can at least partially operate on their own power the more civilization will survive.

All of this while at the same time significantly reducing emissions, just in case the Arctic holds long enough for us to remove all that garbage from the air.