Electric Cars? Think again if we really want this.(Another lib myth shattered)

Hurricane Ike just brought the reality back to the dreams of liberals who think electric cars are the solution for the future.

We just went thru Ike and guess what happened? Virtually the entire city was knocked out of power.

What would have happened if the libs would have made it mandatory to have electric cars? No one could have gotten around as there was no way to recharge them.

Cars like the Chevy Volt have a very low range of miles before they need recharging. I thought I saw ~ 40 miles but could be wrong. This would not be enough to even escape a hurricane like we just had.

We have light rail service here in Houston that was also reduced to immobility for the same reason - no power. The city's solution was to go back to independently driven diesel-powered buses that drove exactly the same routes.

The libs would have us believe that electric cars are the God-send we need for efficiency and environment. Truth is they run poorly and do not stack up against the combustion engine.

Although I have not seen the new "Energy bill" that Pelosi just passed thru the house, I bet it contains more money thrown at electric transportation in the form of vehicles or mass transit.

Friend, you toss out these kilowatt numbers as if they are trivial things. This is some serious power, as you scale up to support even limited deployment of electric vehicles.

It's serious instantaneous power compared to what most people are used to at home. Not serious long-term power compared to what people are used to at home, and not serious instantaneous power compared to industrial uses. A typical 10,000 square foot factory will have a 1,000A@480V (~500kW) 3-phase feed or so, and energy-intensive operations will have significantly more. A gas pump can easily pump 10 gallons of gas in 5 minutes. A gallon of gas has the energy equivalent of 36 kWh. So the equivalent of 20 gallons, 720 kWh is dispensed at the local gas pump in 10 minutes (usually much less than that, but letâ€™s be conservative)

A gasoline car gets ~20% of the energy from its fuel turned into torque. A li-ion EV gets ~85-90% of the energy in its batteries turned to torque. As for your "usually much less than that", true if you only count the time from when gasoline starts flowing to when it stops. But unless your car has a teleporter installed, there's time to get off the highway, find a station, connect, disconnect, pay, and get back on the highway, and that's probably well more time than you spend connected to the pump with fuel flowing. This overhead is roughly constant whatever type of vehicle you're driving.

My local gas station has 24 pumps, when used simultaneously, thatâ€™s 6 Megawatts. When you consider youâ€™ll need double that (since it takes twice as long to â€œfill upâ€ then thatâ€™s 12 Megawatts

Strange -- your gas station has all 24 pumps spewing out gasoline 24/7? Because that's what you're assuming. In the world that I live in, your average pump isn't pumping anything for about 90 to 95% of the day when you consider the overhead time of people arriving, connecting, disconnecting, and the ever-common case of nobody being at the pump, which consists of most of the day, especially during "off hours". Once again, you're acting like the charger draws a 60kW (or 250kW) *instantaneous load* from the grid, 24/7. They do not. Fast chargers have internal battery packs. Multiple chargers at once station share a common battery bank. The chargers or bank draws for a running average.

So, you say that if I donâ€™t agree with you, then I must support Chavez, Putin, Ahmadinejad, the house of Saud, and the myriad of questionable characters out there? I say you are a freedom-hating control freak that wants everyone to do what you say and drive a golf-cart.

Great job addressing the charge without addressing the charge. Once again: if you're insistant that we keep doing actions that keep us reliant on huge amounts of foreign oil, you're insistant that we keep propping them up. It's really that simple, because it's the oil money that keeps these tyrants going. We need to drill every last drop out of our lands, but the fact remains is that they can produce oil for $5 a barrel when it costs us $30, and they have orders of magnitude more of it.

The â€œ1/3 the costâ€ mantra is dishonest.

It's not dishonest in the least. The US average cost for home electricity is $0.10/kWh. Corporate and industrial sites tend to pay less; if you own your own plant, a good coal plant will generate electricity for under $0.05/kWh. The rest of the costs are amortization on infrastructure -- power lines, substations, peaking, etc. Gasoline is ~$3.75 a gallon. A ~22mpg non-hybrid gasoline car switched to use an electric drivetrain will generally consume about 340Wh/mi combined cycle (see RAV4 versus RAV4EV as an example, incl. EPA ratings). The 22mpg gasoline car thus gets $0.17/mi, while the RAV4EV gets $0.035/mi (just over 1/5th the cost). A 50mpg hybrid gasoline car switched to use an electric drivetrain will generally get about 200Wh/mi (see Volt and about half a dozen others) (the difference isn't as great because hybrids burn the fuel more efficiently since they tend to run their engines at a more optimal RPM/torque level). The hybrid would be getting $0.075/mi, while the electric will be getting $0.02/mi (Just over 1/4th the cost). So, actually, saying 1/3 the cost was actually being kind to gasoline.

Just to preempt you:
1) EPA drivecycles are EPA drivecycles; you can't claim that the numbers aren't accurate because the EV would somehow be driven slower because *that doesn't fly with the EPA*.
2) The reason that electricity is so much cheaper is because 1) oil is incredibly expensive per unit energy compared to coal; and 2) electricity works with economies of scale -- huge trainloads of coal headed straight to centralized power plants instead of having to distribute gasoline to a ton of individual vehicles scattered everywhere throughout the country. Electric infrastructure powered by coal or nuclear (mines, processing, power plants, transmission lines, etc) is just plain cheaper to build than oil infrastructure (deepwater rigs, wells in remote locations, pipelines in remote locations, refineries, etc).
3) If you're going to use the "battery lifespan" argument, forget about it. It applies to lead-acid batteries, but almost nobody's using those these days. The standard today are the automotive li-ion variants (Tesla uses standard li-ions, but they're pretty much loners on that front). Lithium iron phosphate, for example, gets 20% loss in capacity in about 7,000 cycles with charge/discharge times measured in a couple hours, and gets 20% loss in capacity in about 1,000 cycles when charge/discharge time is measured in a dozen minutes or so. Discharge times will virtually always be measured in hours; there's no way to run down a pack faster than that in real-world driving. About 90% of charges -- day-to-day-use -- would be overnight (slow). About 10% -- those cross-country trips -- would be fast. So, you're still looking at many thousands of cycles. Let's be pessimistic and only say 3,000. 3000 cycles * a mere 150 miles per cycle = 450,000 miles. There's a reason why GM is giving a 10 year warranty on the Volt's battery pack. Oh, and FYI, the phosphates aren't even the most durable; the titanates last *tens* of thousands of cycles.

By the way -- not once have I told you what *you* must do. I'm just explaining why *I* am in favor of electric vehicles. You do whatever you want, and let where your dollars are going weigh on your own conscience. And I hope they do whenever you see a bomb hit one of our embassies in the Middle East.

P.S. -- Concerning the Tesla getting 92 miles when driven flat out: A sports car won't give you 300 miles when you drive it flat out, either. Drive a Lamborghini on the EPA drivecycle and you'll get 10-20 mpg and go ~300 miles or so. Race it like there's no tomorrow and you'll get around 5mpg and go ~100 miles. On the EPA drivecycle, the Tesla got ~225 miles on the EPA drivecycle, *confirmed* by the EPA. Note that I use the past-tense. With the upgrade to powertrain 1.5, the Tesla's EPA range went *up* (yeah, with electrics, the more powerful the car, the *less* energy it consumes, since the fatter wires dissipate less power as heat) to around 240 miles.

“P.S. — Concerning the Tesla getting 92 miles when driven flat out: “

The article said they got 93 miles from their day of driving, so, that’s not flat out, per se. It was challenging, but any real car could drive the same windy mountain roads and still have more than half a tank of gas left.

Friend....If you were designing a charging station, you’d assume you could deliver a large fraction of the capacity of 24 pumps simultaneously - because as you pointed out, it takes so long to charge them that you are very likely to have most in use simultaneously. It’s basic queuing theory. If you have battery packs, you’d have the problem of charging those too. My assumptions are not unreasonable from an engineering perspective.

I agree - gas absolute energy fraction to power is relatively small - but that’s why I used the 20 mpg/20 gal comparison - it’s apples to apples for an electric car example going 400miles.

Electric cars, including the Tesla, are mostly hype. If you drive a Tesla gingerly, you *may* get the mileage EPA stated - level ground, slow starts, few stops (and no AC).

This is the unfortunate truth about electric cars. If you drive it like, well, a real car, then you get 93 miles (and this review was written by a fan).

The fact is that my old late 60’s VW microbus outperforms the Tesla in any measure that matters - because if you drive the Tesla like the sports car it is supposed to be, the microbus will be towing you home, with plenty of gas left over.

I’ll leave your terrorist-fan demagoguery alone. You think electric cars will keep us from buying petroleum. You think I’m an idiot for disagreeing with you. I’m not calling you an idiot, just a gullible fool.

Your electric car does not perform like a car, has a fraction of the advertised range if it is driven like a car, and it cannot be refueled like a car in a reasonable amount of time. as an aside - I was just looking at some Tesla stuff - did you know if you plug it in a standard wall socket, it takes 30 HOURS to recharge?

This argument is easy, really. Physics is on the side of reason and reality. You have bought into the EV hype - that rely on “average users” and available high-capacity charging stations, and optimistic usage tests under optimal conditions.

Batteries will never, ever outperform an internal combustion engine as a power source. They will never even come close. That said, maybe the 5% of people who confine their driving to the sweet spot of an electric vehicle will be happy with them.

I eagerly await the real-world reviews from Tesla owners. My guess is that they will be embarrassed to admit the true performance of their $100k wonder and probably keep quiet. It is unreasonable to expect it to be anything but a toy that stays close to home at all times.

The same is likely to be true of Volt owners, assuming they ever figure out how to actually build a battery to fit the hype that they have started on that. At least they’ll have a real power source to get them home.

It is an interesting discussion though, your misguided name calling notwithstanding. I hope you buy an electric car and learn the physics of them personally. A long walk at night on a lonely road can help clear your mind of obstacles to truth.

Thanks again; this is the sort of thing I have been looking for, the let’s beat the bushes sort of thing that I clipped from one of your links:

“TEG tells me that once I get my Clean Air Vehicle stickers, I am exempt from paying bridge tolls, but he also says that most bridge toll collectors don’t know this. I don’t have the stickers yet, so I would have to pay anyway. But… I handed Carolyn my wallet to dig out the cash, and I was out of cash! I pulled off at the last exit before the toll booths so Carolyn could get at her purse in the trunk. At this point, the trip odometer is already saying over 90 miles driven. Hmph. Lots of juice left, so I got on the freeway at full throttle. (We really need a new list of expressions for this!)
We were into a strong headwind as we crossed the bridge (at about 75 mph), and the energy consumption of the car was noticeably higher – reaching 750 Wh/mile as I went up the bridge’s high-rise.

We continued on 92, up to the top of the hill, driving as quickly as the road would allow. Left onto Skyline Boulevard, for the last 15 miles of twisty roads and on home.

This last bit of driving brought is 2,400 feet above sea level, and most of the trip was up and down hills. I was not pampering the car in the slightest, and the trip odometer read 125 miles when I got home. I had perhaps 30 miles’ range left in the car at the end. Not bad. And not one drop of petroleum burned.”

Maybe we’ll need to get used to what Wh/mile means as opposed to MPG after all.

Still, at $109,000 base it’s a bit pricy.

The article said they got 93 miles from their day of driving, so, thatâ€™s not flat out, per se. It was challenging, but any real car could drive the same windy mountain roads and still have more than half a tank of gas left.

I'm sorry, but if you race a Lamborghini on Skyline Boulevard in a way that is "spirited and over twisting mountain roads", you're not going to make it 200 miles on a tank. Ever. If you drive a sports car like a sports car, your mileage will get cut to a third to half of what it does driving it by the EPA drivecycle (standard point-A to point-B everyday driving). Show me a sports car that does 0-60 in 3.9 seconds or so that gets anywhere *close* to its EPA mileage when driven "spirited and over twisting mountain roads" -- I directly challenge you to. The EPA drivecycle distance for the Tesla Roadster is about *240 miles*. You can claim otherwise until you're blue in the face, but that won't make it not be so. The EPA drivecycle is a strict, precise set of procedures that one has to follow in order for specified lengths of time -- speeds, accelerations, AC, etc. Oh, and FYI, the Tesla Roadster has a 15% reserve charge that's part of its range (you may have noticed how the article mentions the sudden jump from 7% to 22% charge at the end, plus they started at 95%; hence, they only consumed about 3/4ths of a full charge). Hence, you're actually claiming that your typical high performance sports car will really go *250* miles on a tank "spirited and over twisting mountain roads", which is even more ludicrous.

youâ€™d assume you could deliver a large fraction of the capacity of 24 pumps simultaneously

Which you can. There's a huge difference, however, between being able to deliver a large fraction of the capacity simultaneously and having to deliver that *constantly, 24/7*. You've been equating the instantaneous delivery to a constant draw, which is obviously an unrealistic situation. The input to the battery bank only needs to be a small fraction of what the *peak* output from the bank is, because no station is ever going to be delivering its peak output 24/7. That's physically impossible.

Your average gas pump probably is outputting gasoline about 5% of the time it sits there; hence, a input of gasoline to the storage tank under the station to compensate for that pump needs to only occur on average 5% as fast as the maximum flow rate of that pump.

Real-world example: searching for how much gasoline your average station sells a day, I ran into this. "In Alexandria, Ali Rana, the gas station manager at Olde Town Car Care Shell, said he could run out of gas by the end of the month. He was informed by his supplier that he would receive enough to sell only 1,700 gallons per day, and he usually sells about 2,200." I googled them and found this website. Looks like an 8 pump station. So, each pump is averaging outputting 275 gallons a day. If we assume that a pump can output 4 gallons a minute, then that means that the average pump was operating for ~69 minutes each day. That means that each pump averages running *less* than 5% of the time throughout the day.

Now, let's just assume that on an abnormally busy day, the station needs to deliver 4000 gallons per day. I honestly doubt the gas station is equipped to handle more than that anyways. That's 484GJ of energy delivered, which turns into about 100GJ of wheel torque when the cars burn it. EVs would need to be provided about 115GJ of electricity to get the same amount of wheel torque, which is 32 MWh. Averaged throughout the course of the day by the battery bank, that's a constant draw of 1.3MW. For comparison, a typical aluminum smelter draws about 400MW. 1.3MW is nothing unusual in terms of industrial electricity draw. And this is for an abnormally busy day.

But wait -- it gets better. This is for an 8 pump gas station. A very large one will be 30 pumps or so. Great... except for the fact that 90% of EV charging is done at home. Unlike a gasoline car, you only ever need to fill up at a fast charge station when you're on long trips. Hence, to service the same total number of vehicles, that 30-car station actually only needs to be a *3*-car station. Which is 130 kilowatts constant draw on a busy day. Which is, suffice to say, completely unimpressive as far as commercial/industrial purposes go.

Electric cars, including the Tesla, are mostly hype. If you drive a Tesla gingerly, you *may* get the mileage EPA stated - level ground, slow starts, few stops (and no AC).

Wrong. The revised EPA drivecycle does not assume level ground, has moderate accel/decel, has ample starts/stops on the city rating (the three ratings are city, highway, and combined; the Tesla's range is for combined), and includes AC. The old EPA drivecycle was more gentle, which is why most cars didn't reach their rated mileage in practice. If you visit fueleconomy.gov and compare the user ratings for what their vehicles get in the real world, you'll find that, in practice, the new EPA mileages are pretty accurate.

I was just looking at some Tesla stuff - did you know if you plug it in a standard wall socket, it takes 30 HOURS to recharge?
And 7 1/2 hours from a dryer outlet, and ~2 1/2 hours from a dedicated charger... *assuming* that it's battery is dead. FYI, a regular wall socket is 1.7kW, a dryer outlet is 7kW, and the dedicated charger is ~18kW. Nothing compared to 60kW, and especially not 250kW.

You have bought into the EV hype - that rely on â€œaverage usersâ€ and available high-capacity charging stations, and optimistic usage tests under optimal conditions.

I've "bought into" the EPA drivecycle, which represents normal, everyday, real-world conditions, and which gives realistic numbers, as evidenced by the posts on fueleconomy.gov. You seem to have a problem with normal, everyday, real-world conditions, and insist on comparing the range you get on a sports car driven "spirited and over twisting mountain roads" to the range of your average car driven normally on a highway or in town while ignoring how far gasoline sports cars *actually* go when you drive them hard. I've "bought into" chargers that *already exist*. You seem to have a problem with things that already exist. Who is living in reality here?

I eagerly await the real-world reviews from Tesla owners. My guess is that they will be embarrassed to admit the true performance of their $100k wonder and probably keep quiet.
I've read several dozen reviews of the Roadster, and about half a dozen from real-world owners. They're usually giddy. I just linked a couple earlier in this thread. Tell me how many more you want, and I'll get you that many more.

The same is likely to be true of Volt owners

Ha - I'd love to see your reasoning on this one. At least you can argue that the mainland US doesn't have a fast charger network *yet*. Go on, argue that a vehicle that just switches over to gasoline somehow is range restricted.

assuming they ever figure out how to actually build a battery to fit the hype that they have started on that.

Lithium phosphate and stabilized spinel batteries are very, very real. Here, want to see one? Go down to your local hardware store and pick up a cordless DeWalt power tool. Congratulations -- you're now the proud owner of an A123 lithium iron phosphate cell. 7000 cycles when charged/discharged at 0.5C and 1000 when charged at 3-4C/discharged at 6-8C, for 20% capacity loss. Go on, try it out.

“You can claim otherwise until you’re blue in the face, but that won’t make it not be so.”

We’re not talking about a Lamborghini. A Tesla, if driven like a car, over roads that cars drive, gets less than half the advertised range. If you have other stats indicating different range stats, please post them.

I know you trust the EPA. I do not believe that the EPA can do anything competently - hence mileage stats are every bit as worthless as range stats. I’m sorry, but that is their track record over decades. The only thing that matters is real people driving every day. I just read the “new” drive cycle test - and it does not include testing the maximum range of an electric vehicle. You’d have to extrapolate that based on data provided by Tesla, in other words, whatever Tesla would like it’s range to be they can provide the data to support it. Yes, I believe a car maker would game the stats to make their car look better than it is, and based on the 93 mile range of the test I found, that seems to be the case.

Here is a test that would matter: can a Tesla owner take their car from SF to, say, Tahoe to go skiing? That should be well within its range, but judging from the review I posted, this might not be a good idea.

I’m not sure what your point is about gas pumps. If your point is that some how taking power to charge a battery bank at a charging station (and that would be a beefy battery bank, indeed) and then taking that power from those batteries and using it to charge batteries in other EV’s is somehow proving how workable charging infrastructure is, and how cheap the power distribution upgrades will be, then I’m not agreeing with your point. You’ve made it more costly at that point. You will design a charging station to operate at a large fraction of it’s capacity - not because it operates 24 x 7, but because that is it’s peak, and it is likely to operate near it’s peak often enough to warrant it. Do you not realize that a battery bank on a 12MW charging station would have to be huge to make a difference? It would also be hugely expensive. So let’s put that to rest. You also fail to consider that power at a charging station will probably be subject to the federal tax equivalent of the gas tax.

I concede that if you ignore infrastructure, time-to-charge, and frequency of needed charge, that electric cars do seem to be a compelling alternative for a low fraction of people who drive cars.

“And 7 1/2 hours from a dryer outlet, and ~2 1/2 hours from a dedicated charger... *assuming* that it’s battery is dead. FYI, a regular wall socket is 1.7kW, a dryer outlet is 7kW, and the dedicated charger is ~18kW”

Ok, I’ll bite again. How much, on average, does it cost to get an 18kW “dedicated charger” installed, given that the average home cannot support that level of power? I’d say it would be upwards of $10,000, but it could be more. It will require a utility upgrade, a new transformer, and probably 3-phase service. We’ll ignore, for now, the distribution infrastructure required to support a whole neighborhood.

“Go on, argue that a vehicle that just switches over to gasoline somehow is range restricted.” No I’m making no such argument - just that it’s “electric-only” mode will be range restricted because that’s how physics works.

There is apparently no real basis, other than faith in the manufacturer, for a 200+ mile range for the Tesla. If you have other data from owners, please post it.

Grumble -- my browser crashed as I was typing, so I'm having to redo this post.

We’re not talking about a Lamborghini. A Tesla, if driven like a car, over roads that cars drive, gets less than half the advertised range.

No, A Tesla, if driven like a *sports car*, which the article you linked *explicitly claimed they were doing*, gets less than half the advertized range. *Any sports car*, *when driven like a sports car*, gets less than half the advertized range. Driven like a *normal car*, they get the advertized range.

I know you trust the EPA. I do not believe that the EPA can do anything competently - hence mileage stats are every bit as worthless as range stats.

Look, for all I care, the EPA could be drowned in a bathtub; they've done far more harm than good to this country. However, the fact remains that the revised EPA drivecycle numbers *do* match up with real-world, *normal* driving conditions. Since you haven't done it for yourself, I'll make it easy for you -- go to fueleconomy.gov and compare the official ratings with what people are reporting that they're getting on their cars. I'll go ahead and do it for you just as an example -- let's pick some stereotypical vehicles from each class -- the 8-cyl automatic Ford F-150, the manual 5-speed Honda Civic, the automatic Hummer H2, and the Toyota Prius. Let's look at the results:

* F-150: EPA: 15mpg; average of 5 vehicles: 16.2mpg
* Civic: EPA: 29mpg; average of 32 vehicles: 32.4mpg
* Hummer: EPA: 15mpg; average of 8 vehicles: 16.8mpg
* Prius: EPA: 46mpg; average of 141 vehicles: 46.9mpg

I'm sorry, but that is their track record over decades.

Apparently you missed that the EPA revised their drivecycle a couple years ago. You're right -- for decades, they *did* get numbers that were notably too high. For example, on the old drivecycle, the Prius got 55mpg. The old drivecycle included lower speeds, less accel, and no AC. The revised drivecycle includes faster speeds, more accel, and AC, and its numbers are generally pretty spot on -- if anything, a little low.

I just read the “new” drive cycle test - and it does not include testing the maximum range of an electric vehicle.

The Tesla Roadster has FMVSS certification, as is required by law. Part 531 of FMVSS certification is fuel economy standards. This refers you to 40 CFR 600. It's a huge document and I *seriously* doubt you've ever read it, but I have. It mandates mpge calculations for electric vehicles, which are determined by certified dynamometer testing on the EPA drivecycle. The vehicle has to have its electricity consumption determined. In Tesla's case, it's about 210Wh/mi in combined cycle, which is nothing unusual for a vehicle like that. The pack is about 56kWh, which would work out to 267 miles; however, they don't utilize the entire pack for longevity reasons. It's just the same as how other manufacturers multiply *their* combined mileage times their gas tank size to get their range figures.

Here is a test that would matter: can a Tesla owner take their car from SF to, say, Tahoe to go skiing? That should be well within its range, but judging from the review I posted, this might not be a good idea.

Why yes, yes it will -- and that's over 200 miles. The uphill return on a single charge, however, was iffy at the time, and they didn't try it; with the extra range from powertrain 1.5, it shouldn't be iffy anymore. Plus, there are chargers in Tahoe and along the way anyways.

I’m not sure what your point is about gas pumps. If your point is that some how taking power to charge a battery bank at a charging station (and that would be a beefy battery bank, indeed) and then taking that power from those batteries and using it to charge batteries in other EV’s is somehow proving how workable charging infrastructure is, and how cheap the power distribution upgrades will be, then I’m not agreeing with your point.

That's exactly how fast chargers work. They don't draw straight from the grid; they draw from battery banks.

You’ve made it more costly at that point.

I already quoted fast charger prices for you. I can dig up refs for those prices if you want.

You will design a charging station to operate at a large fraction of it’s capacity - not because it operates 24 x 7, but because that is it’s peak

Which is why I used an assumption of a peak delivery equivalent to 4,000 gallons of gasoline instead of what the gas station owner was typically delivering, 2,200 gallons.

Do you not realize that a battery bank on a 12MW charging station would have to be huge to make a difference?

Obviously.

It would also be hugely expensive.

Price was already discussed. Yeah, fast chargers are expensive because of that. But you know what? So is burying a huge gas tank 20 feet underground. A typical 8 pump gas station will cost you a million dollars or so to build. More in places where land is expensive, like SoCal or NYC.

You also fail to consider that power at a charging station will probably be subject to the federal tax equivalent of the gas tax.

Yeah, let's tax air while we're at it. We pay too much in taxes as it is. Electricity already is taxed. Still, if your electricity is pessimistically the cost equivalent of $0.75/gal gasoline, and you add in the *current* ~$0.40/gal tax on *top* of the current electricity taxes, that still only makes it a $1.15/gal equivalent. And this assumes that you're buying your power at home retail rates, not commercial/industrial bulk rates.

Ok, I’ll bite again. How much, on average, does it cost to get an 18kW “dedicated charger” installed, given that the average home cannot support that level of power?

Since when? First off, you don't need to fast charge at home. Fast charging is only important for when you're on the road. So, the real issue is how much power your average *commercial* building has (answer: breaker box with hundreds or even thousands of amps). But even at home, your average home has a breaker panel rated for 100 to 200 amps. Now, 80A is a bit much for a 100A home, but 50A is quite reasonable unless the house is way overloaded, and even the 30A from a dryer outlet is plenty fast enough to charge a tesla even from dead to ~240 miles range overnight. Tesla also makes a 70A charger. You really only need high charge rates when on the road. I don't know how much it costs to install a Tesla charger (which pretty much just outputs direct AC), but I had a dryer outlet installed earlier this year, and that cost me $100 or so.

"Go on, argue that a vehicle that just switches over to gasoline somehow is range restricted." No I’m making no such argument

But that is what you claimed. Go back and read your earlier post. If you wish to retract it, that's fine by me.

“Any sports car*, *when driven like a sports car*, gets less than half the advertized range.”

Look this isn’t true. Stop saying it. ok, maybe for a lamborghini, but I don’t know anyone who drives one. Pick any mid to low end sports car. That’s what it should be compared to.

By the way, they said the drove all day and only covered 93 miles. So for something that goes 0-60 in 3.9 seconds, that’s not driving it very hard. But that’s just my opinion.

“t’s a huge document and I *seriously* doubt you’ve ever read it, but I have.” No I haven’t read it....my condolences. It matters not. There is no independent corroboration of absolute out-of-the-box range. 93 miles is the best I could find for any sort of comparison - and this was written by a fan.

Do you have any independent reviews from owners? I’ll believe those. Nothing from EPA, nothing from Tesla will fly for this argument - especially when there is reason to believe (from car and driver) that it’s much less.

“Why yes, yes it will — and that’s over 200 miles. The uphill return on a single charge, however, was iffy at the time, and they didn’t try it;”

I asked about uphill, it can’t do it, or they would have done it and reported on it. Don’t you think? Do these Tesla guys never go to Tahoe? I find that hard to believe. They simply don’t take their Tesla when they do.

So, no....no it won’t.

This was from your link: “On the low end, engineers drove only 165 miles of “impatient commuting” with high speeds, aggressive starts and stops and air-conditioning running.”

LOL.....notice they mention AC running. That was how we got into this discussion. I wonder why they mentioned it, if it’s not a big deal as you claimed? Notice how they make excuses here? “Impatient commuting” Car-and-Driver used “Spirited Driving”. You can learn a lot by the language they use. This is the unobjective language of deception, which is the EV way. How about “We let 10 random drivers use the Tesla for a week.....” sort of testing?

“That’s exactly how fast chargers work. They don’t draw straight from the grid; they draw from battery banks.”

yes, thank you for explaining. Please explain also that they get their power from a substation, a substantial one to charge the fast-charger batteries. I tried to explain how queuing theory makes it likely that a charging station would be quite full with cars waiting in line and this impacts the engineering of a charging station (and ability to use fastchargers)......but nevermind.

“And this assumes that you’re buying your power at home retail rates, not commercial/industrial bulk rates.”

I won’t argue this point, you’re right that absolute cost for equivalent energy the electricity is cheaper than gas. But you do have significant costs that you have to ignore overall.

“But that is what you claimed. Go back and read your earlier post. If you wish to retract it, that’s fine by me.”

I re-read that post. What do you think I meant by the Volt having a “real power source” to get it home? Do you think I was referring to it’s electric motor and battery?

I’m not against electric vehicles, but you are totally in the tank for Tesla. If you’ve read that voluminous government reg, you must be in the business. I think it’s good for you to advocate for your bread-and-butter, but your claims that the Tesla is just like a regular car is simply not proven. Using data from folks who are also in the tank for Tesla like you, I’ve shown that there is reason to be skeptical and that “real” performance is probably about half of what they claim.

I’m willing to defer to actual users reports, but again, I wonder if you’d find anyone willing to admit they bought a $100k under-performing disappointment?

storage battery EV’s are for a very narrow segment of people. They will never be a viable mass-market alternative in a Free America.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.