Tesla Finally Unveils $35,000 Standard Model 3

I thought that was an option?

"Autocremate" - saves on funeral expenses.

 

You sure like to twist things to favor your narrative.
The stupid/faulty part of the door locks only applies to the outside of the car. You unlock and open the doors the same way like any other from the inside. If the doors were locked, the bystander from the outside wasn't going to get them open regardless of what the car was. In other words, anyone "in no condition" to unlock a door is not going to fare better in a different car (aside from the fire, of course). Considering the very high speed of the cash, I wouldn't be surprised if the driver was unconscious. Not that it would matter since firefighters know how to break someone free. It's not uncommon for a major accident to have doors that can't open.

Meanwhile, have you seen modern cars in accidents? Just about every brand has airbags everywhere. Take this for example, from a Nissan Frontier:
https://www.clubfrontier.org/forums...961844-side-airbag-deployed-truck-airbag2.jpg
Note how this picture was taken well after the accident, and the airbags are still somewhat inflated. This is common. I myself have been in an accident where the side airbags never fully deflated (and no, not in an EV, not that it matters).

I don't recall anybody ever saying EVs are safer [in an accident]. Teslas in general are potentially safer since they can (but not always) take control and either avoid or reduce the damage, but when you crash at 75MPH, you're probably going to damage the battery, at which case you're in trouble. However, when a technology like graphene becomes mass-producible and used in EVs, that will actually make them safer than gasoline cars.
For now, if fire safety is your #1 concern, go with a diesel.

Also, where are you getting your facts saying they'll burn in 5 minutes? That's a crazy exaggeration.

 

Just about one of the most naive things said so far. Cars can burn to ground in less then a minute, there are so many factors as to how and why a car might burn faster or slower.

Don't make up nonsense to support your narrative.

 

nvm.

 

Model Y on March 14th .

 

I was specifically talking about Tesla. Pretty much all the typical dealers provide similar offers. It also doesn't solve the fundamental problem of huge battery that weights half a car. This weight has to be transported at all times and it weights exactly the same with full charge and with no charge. The advancements in the electric cars in those last hundred years are due to the improvements in batteries, but if you again check the energy density, they are still an order of magnitude worse than burning any oil product.

Cobalt is mostly mined in the African copper belt, i.e. DR Congo produces almost 60% of all Cobalt. They absolutely do not protect environment or people who work there. While oil refineries are major sources of pollution, they do not have to be located in third world countries and can therefore be regulated much better. You have also absolutely omitted the energy cost of converting all those materials into batteries or any processing of batteries once they die after a few years.

I only skipped through your video, but the argument the guy makes is that electric cars are more efficient than internal combustion engine cars. This is not the argument I made. The electricity for that car still mostly comes from fossil fuels and coal power plants are roughly as efficient as cars. You also need to account for the electricity transportation losses and while the electric car is more efficient than oil based car, it still is mostly powered by burning coal in the end.

Fuel prices of Europe are due to the taxes, which often make over 50% of the final price.

My viewpoint doesn't come from convenience, but from practicality. Many "green" solutions are borderline scams filled with trendy buzz words, pushed by politicians and journalists who do not understand what they even talk about. Coal and oil simply can't be replaced in our energy production, especially if you exclude nuclear power as well. Just look at i.e. Germany forgoing nuclear power, they now were forced to replace them with coal power plants, burning brown coal. Or the electric car adoption in Norway, where the living districts become unpassable at night, due to the residents using power cords from their flat to the nearby parking lot to charge their car. If such a rich country as Norway can't build charging stations fast enough, what can the rest of the world realistically expect ? So electric cars are OK if you drive 15 min to work, but at that point it's probably easier to take a bus. For almost everything else, they can't replace regular car.

If you want to improve environment, it's much better to focus on industries that produce most of the emissions. We export the production to third world countries where the labor is cheap and the countries have no environment laws. Another one is recycling, there is so much trash both in the junk yards and even floating in the ocean, yet many of it could have been sorted and recycled. But that is somehow not a trendy thing to focus, for some reason it's much more popular to think that few individuals driving electric car are going to save the world.

 

I disagree with the notion that batteries are somehow much better than oil refineries. Most cobalt is mined in Africa and they care very little about environment or the safety of people working there. Plus you also need to spend energy turning those metals into batteries and those batteries would last a few years and then they would have to be replaced and recycled, which needs further energy and produce further pollution.

Batteries is a fundamental problem of electric cars. It can't be remedied unless we invent completely new principles of constructing batteries. The argument about batteries has nothing to do with efficiency of electric cars. It is simply the efficiency of transforming energy from battery/fuel to motion. And here the electric cars really win out. On the same amount of energy an internal combustion car would go only half as far, however in practice the energy density of fuel is ~25x higher than the best battery we can build. That's why an ordinary car has a fuel tank for ~15 liters and on that tank it can go further than electric car that has 500kg battery.

You also need to consider where the electricity for electric car comes from and that is mostly coal power plants, with similar efficiencies as internal combustion engine cars.

The price argument is sound, but over half of the cost of gas is taxes (I assume you talk about Europe since you use €). It has nothing to do with technology being inherently better.

 

I like hybrid cars. A friend has a Lexus RX450h which I've driven and am familiar with. No electric plug to have to deal with, recharges itself in usage and gets very good mileage.

 

In the US coal only makes up 30% of power generation - natural gas is the highest and also more efficient than coal. Regardless, I find it really hard to believe that generating all the power in one area and distributing it over power lines with near optimal efficiency (average loss of 6.5% in distribution grid in US) to an electric motor connected directly to the wheel has "similar efficiencies" as the route gasoline takes after it's refined. I also don't believe (nor can find any source, in fact I find the opposite) that a coal fired power plant has the same efficiency as a gasoline engine.

That's also not to mention that when the power source improves (whether the coal firing plants get upgraded, or shut down in favor of wind/solar/natural gas) all the EVs produced are instantly more efficient.

 

Your research is incomplete. Yes, the batteries weigh a lot and have relatively poor energy density, but despite what you think, there is no range issue anymore (well, unless you drive the Mitsubishi i-MIEV, which is a piece of crap). In other words, the benefits of EVs outweigh (pun intended) the battery's disadvantages.
Almost nothing will have better energy density than fossil fuels. They're a product of millions of years of compressing organic material under the Earth's crust at great temperatures. There's a reason humans haven't been able to make something to match it in energy density. However, that doesn't change the fact that we will run out, and that the efficiency of modern EVs actually makes more use out of fossil fuel energy than ICEs.

Uh... petroleum refineries are hardly any better. They make spills, they deliberately damage ecosystems, and a lot of them come from "3rd world countries" like Venezuela or Iraq. So, your point there is somewhat moot (in the sense that you make cobalt mining out to be a greater issue).
The energy cost converting those materials into batteries is irrelevant considering places like the Gigafactory are solar powered. Of course, not all (arguably, most) batteries aren't produced there, but as stated multiple times before, these batteries can be recycled. The short-term expense in pollution and energy usage has much greater long-term benefits.

The point of me bringing up that video is EVs use less fossil fuels than cars powered by them. In other words, it doesn't matter if an EV is charged by coal, it's still less wasteful of energy.

Sure, there are few stupid journalists out there who exaggerate things, and there are some stupid trendy buzz words, but what's the scam?
As for the politicians, a bit hypocritical, eh? There are plenty who are incentivized by oil companies, some of which who don't even try to hide it.
This practicality you speak of is limited. We WILL need to transition at some point, so might as well do it early while we still have time.

If that's your outlook then humanity is doomed when those resources run out. Again, this is why we need to plan early. At the very least, EVs can reduce fossil fuel consumption and can buy us more time.
Norway has the money and means to build charging stations fast enough. The problem is dealing with infrastructure when you've got cities that are hundreds of years old. Many cities around the world face this problem.

I agree 99%. Don't get me wrong, I advocate for everything you said there, but, we can also do our own part. What I don't get is you seem to be against people driving EVs. It's one thing to think "they're not that great" but you seem to be implying people shouldn't use them, and that's what I don't get.
It's worth pointing out that I'm not expecting everyone to transition to EVs, because not only is that unrealistic, not everyone needs to, or should. I'm also a major proponent of alternative fuels, like E85 or algae-based gasoline.

 

I've been preaching this idea for years but nobody ever listens to me!



Grrrrrr.....

 

I figure the giant robots can recycle them and use them once the sun goes dark to continue powering the Matrix?

 

63% of USA power generation is through fossil fuels, half of that is coal. The EV is better at utilizing that energy as it has better efficiency, but in overall pollution it's not that better than a regular car. The battery of EV is about 50 kWh, which would be around 5l of gas. Even if say the efficiency of EV is 2x better as a regular car, you would get similar mileage out of that energy. Only in a regular car you would fill up the tank in a minute and continue, while with EV you'd need to wait 20 - 30h.

There is range issue, 350 km is nothing. You can easily drive say a 100 km to work and back, and at home you might not even have enough time to charge it fully over night, so by the end of week you'll have to take a bus ride to work. Not to mention any trip anywhere outside the city. The weight of battery is there to demonstrate how massively different the energy densities are and why we use fossil fuel. I'll just repeat the example above

The battery of EV is about 50 kWh, which would be around 5l of gas. Even if say the efficiency of EV is 2x better as a regular car, you would get similar mileage out of that energy. Only in a regular car you would fill up the tank in a minute and continue, while with EV you'd need to wait 20 - 30h.

I disagree, while there are some refineries in i.e. India and Venezuela. Largest refineries are in the UAE, USA, Singapore or Saudi Arabia. I'd say they do follow general environmental rules and have money to invest into technology. While 58% of Cobalt is mined in DR Congo.

You can prove me wrong, but googling solar powered factories gave me a link of "first solar powered factory" from 2016. Not sure therefore how is that supposed to be relevant. In any case, even if you were to consider solar power or any other power, you would still need to produce solar panels, that require raw materials and spending energy on production. They also have a finite lifetime and would need to be recycled as well.

If you relate it to the distance you can travel, then no. They get pretty much the same.

Yes, we need transition, just not in the way it is pushed, including EV.

I'm very much pro nuclear power. No issue of incorporating into existing power networks, you can regulate power output. Modern power plants are capable of reusing burned out fuel and harvest i.e. Plutonium which is super expensive and you can't get it any other way. The waste is very small and perfectly manageable, plus the supply of Uranium should last us several hundred years, well into a time when fusion would be probably realistic. I just think that a broader public has very bad opinion about it, because mostly, they don't understand it.

Norway is building fast, but they are simply unable to build fast enough. This is because they have subsidized EV, so many bought them (31%).

I see EVs as a gimmick for some people to make a lot of money. In total cars contribute nothing compared to other sources of polution. And that's what we should focus on, not on this distraction.

 

Lol, yeah so 30% coal like I said and not "mostly" like you wrote. And the power is constantly being shifted towards renewable alternatives. As that shift continues all the EVs on the road are constantly being made more efficient.

FWIW I'm also 100% supportive of nuclear power myself but it's a political shitshow unfortunately.

I don't see why we can't have EVs while doing other things. People in this thread constantly keep saying "we should be focused on x instead of y" but no one is really arguing the opposite. The only people that make it distracting are those that constantly attack EVs because "reasons" instead of just letting it happen. Long term EVs are the better option for transportation, regardless to whether we focus on other things or not.

 

Or y'know, finish watching the video I linked to, rather than speculate. He does the math showing what you get, and don't forget regen braking.

You're really just proposing an absolute worst-case scenario. If you have the money to buy one of these cars, chances are, you don't live 100km away from work and/or you have a fast charger in your garage (and that being said, you probably have your own garage).
For someone who fits the description you propose, a [plug-in] hybrid is a much smarter choice for the time being, until battery tech improves.

Again - you won't be able to do this forever. You seem to keep forgetting that fossil fuels are finite. Yes, we have the convenience now, but what will you say when (not if) we don't?
As I said before, EVs aren't for everyone and not the only thing we should focus on, they're just 1 option stepping in the right direction. We need to research alternative fuels and progress seems suspiciously slowed down every time there's news headlines about a new discovery.

General environmental rules meaning what? They're still actively destroying coral reefs and causing earthquakes (due to fracking). People in North Dakota or near the Gulf of Mexico could probably tell you things aren't done as environmentally friendly as you suggest.
Anyway, cobalt makes up for a small percentage of the total battery, and again, is reusable. The environmental damage of cobalt production in a single car's battery is relatively minimal in the grand scheme.

Tesla's Gigafactory, to my understanding, is involved in battery production.
Solar panel production, like cobalt, have long-term benefits. Pay a heavy price once and it pays for itself for an indefinite amount of time. The greatest problem always come down to mining and refining. Recycling is relatively cheap and not so polluting.

Again, watch the video. You are greatly overestimating how crappy the batteries are.

Putting aside your skewed perspectives of battery efficiency and cobalt pollution, what about graphene batteries? They solve pretty much all of the problems with EVs: they're fast to charge, they don't really degrade for charging, they have a much longer shelf-life, they have significantly higher energy density (which means less of it can be used in a car, and therefore further improves efficiency), and they can be punctured without causing fires. Is that not pushing in the right direction?

That's all fine, but what about vehicles?

Depends on what type of pollution. Most people only account for CO2, but there are other greenhouse gases, and there's stuff like carbon monoxide (of which, vehicles are the leading producer of).

 

Distracting discussions. We should all die to save the planet. At least the 90% of us should be vanished to conserve the earth. All modern science agrees and even announced that human is a threat to our home place. Just do not forget idiots, planet is so much stronger and older than you. The same goes for all other planets including the sun. I can't stand fake and baked theories about greenhouse effect or even worse that ice is melting. I am beyond these myths.

 

The planet will survive and recover in the long run. But, since the damage caused was primarily (not entirely) due to human intervention, we are already suffering the consequences. Not like things have to be made worse, though.

Yeah... tell that to the people of:
* Either side of the Bering Strait
* South Louisiana (most of the "sole" of Lousiana's "boot" is gone)
* The Netherlands
* Greenland
* Los Glaciares (Argentina)
And many more. Plenty of photo, video, and satellite evidence that the ice is melting.

 

The more and more you post in these forums, the more and more i 100% believe you are here to troll and cause flame wars just to see what people will react to your nonsense. If it's not crazy and nonsensical theories on electronics and deciding to disregard facts towards it, it's now the same thing about environmental impacts and political nonsense. I mean really?

...Do you live under a rock? Do you shield your eyes of all facts? Do you see what's right in front of you and decide to say "I don't see it"? I really can't fathom mentalities such as yours, you can see what is happening right there in front of you and you literally just turn around and say you don't see it?

Or do you just live south enough that none of it you can physically see and you just don't trust what people who DO LIVE in the north are telling you?

How about you go live in alaska, specifically juneau alaska, and you watch the mendenhall glacier over the next 60 years and then tell the rest of us that it's not melting and receding?

How about you go live on the north pole in an area of ice that has existed for 200+ years and then tell us your house still exists in 60 years?

How about instead of calling facts fake news, you actually do your own research and your own findings then "Well because i don't want to believe something then it shall not be believed! FAKE NEWS!!!!"

It's FACT that the earth has been going to a hotter time period, but it's also FACT that humans are causing that to happen FASTER then what is normal. You can't just decide to pull the sheets over your eyes and then decide to vocally state your uneducated "opinion". Want to pull the sheets over your eyes so you don't have to face facts? Fine! Don't come out and spread your nonsense to others then, stay in your uneducated dome and let the rest of us deal with and try to correct in any way we can, what you are unwilling to see and deal with yourself.

 

First picture is black, no green - each picture is greener than the previous. Proof the earth is recovering.

 

The only sad part about your post is how there will be people who read what you wrote and think "Aha! he gets it! and now my lack of facts nonsensical theories has been proven!"

Just sayin