The Orange one
Electric
- Thread starter Session 5
- Start date
I concur. I’d pick the orange one as well.The Orange one
Jethro Rocker
Ambassador of Live & Loud Action
I won't get into any of the intracacies of all of this other than to say that exhaust, pollution, etc is not good. Whether you agree it causes worse issues is personal but any type of exhaust be it from a motor or a huge plant is not good. The change will come as will the infrastructure to support it.
No politics here just a statement that I happen to agree with the huge vast majority of scientists over the few outliers. It won't really affect us but those with potential grandchildren, they will be the ones dealing with our issues.
No politics here just a statement that I happen to agree with the huge vast majority of scientists over the few outliers. It won't really affect us but those with potential grandchildren, they will be the ones dealing with our issues.
Hence the reason I like the Aptera. It is solar powered with minimal battery storeage. You can drive 40 miles per day with free charging from the sun. I work 20 miles from home. Technically I could drive to work (20 miles), let the car charge from the sun then drive home (20 miles) and never have to plug it in. Cloudy days and night driving would require plugging in to charge when the sun is not to be seen.
Do you have a link?
I can’t find it. I’d like to read it for more information.
The US Energy Information Administration puts transmission and distribution losses at around 5%.
Jethro Rocker
Ambassador of Live & Loud Action
As an aside about the cost of changing batteries, this is interesting.
the current battery modules should last 300,000 to 500,000 miles or 1,500 cycles
Each warranty lasts for eight years or up to 150,000 miles, whichever comes first. Based on the Model of your car, the chart below breaks down the warranty you’re entitled to:
Seems like most people would ditch their vehicle before that surfaces.
Not that I want one but just interesting.
the current battery modules should last 300,000 to 500,000 miles or 1,500 cycles
Each warranty lasts for eight years or up to 150,000 miles, whichever comes first. Based on the Model of your car, the chart below breaks down the warranty you’re entitled to:
| Model | Battery warranty |
| Model 3 Standard Range | 8 years or 100k miles |
| Model 3 Long Range/Performance | 8 years or 120k miles |
| Model Y Long Range | 8 years or 120k miles |
| Model Y Performance | 8 years or 120k miles |
| Model S | 8 years or 150k miles |
| Model X | 8 years or 150k miles |
Seems like most people would ditch their vehicle before that surfaces.
Not that I want one but just interesting.
@smitty_p - from an engineering paper dating to March 2007:
First, how much does overhead transmission wire cost?
Consider ACSS/AW: soft aluminum, supported by aluminum-clad steel. The largest size that Southwire sells (Joree) is 1.88 inches in diameter, 2.38 pounds per foot of aluminum, .309 pounds per foot steel, .0066 ohms/1000 ft DC @ 20 C, rated for 3407 amps at 200 C. As of Dec 1, 2006, it costs $322/CWT. CWT is 100 pounds, so that's $8.66/foot.
Now lets consider how much wire we need to move 10 gigawatts across 1000 miles. The more wire (cross section) we use, the less resistance we'll have and the less power will be lost. The optimal point for these kinds of problems is when the marginal cost of the wire is equal to the marginal cost of the electricity lost to resistance. After this point, when you add wire, the cost of the wire increases faster than the value of the power saved, so that you have lost money.
Let's assume the electricity costs $0.04/kw-hr and that we're transmitting an RMS average of 10 gigawatts. The RMS (root mean square) part of this last assumption lets us estimate power losses. Finally, lets assume we transmit with a +/- 500 kV high-voltage DC transmission system, which is the lowest-loss long-distance transmission system available today.
To convert ongoing electrical costs into a present value we can compare to the cost of the wire, assume a discount rate of 5%.
The optimal point for 10 GW is 4 conductors each way (8 total conductors).
wire cost: $366 million
resistance: 8.72 ohms
power lost: 871 megawatts
P.V. lost electricity: $305 million
Here the wire cost doesn't quite equal the present value of the lost electricity because the number of conductors is quantized, and I'm only considering one type of conductor. But, it's close.
One interesting thing about electrical transmission is that the optimal point for wires used doesn't change with distance. Double the distance, double the resistance, double the power lost, and double the wire cost. The total cross section of conductors used is the same. So we can talk about how much more electricity costs after it has moved a distance.
The electricity transmitted has three costs: the cost of the power lost, the rent on the money borrowed to build the transmission lines, and the maintenance and depreciation on the power lines. We just showed the first two will be equal, and the last will be smaller - electric power lines are like dams and bridges, they last for a long time. So the total cost of transmission will be a bit more than twice the cost of the power lost.
This is a really nice rule of thumb because it reduces away the actual costs of power and interest rates and so forth. We can now convert a distance into a cost multiplier. For the geeks among you, the multiplier is (1+power lost)/(1-power lost). Note that power lost is a function of the relative costs of copper and electricity, so that hasn't been reduced away, but merely hidden.
After 1000 miles, 8.71% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 19% extra.
After 2000 miles, 17.4% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 42% extra.
After 3000 miles, 26.1% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 71% extra.
After 4000 miles, 34.8% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 107% extra.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument for locating generators near their loads.
First, how much does overhead transmission wire cost?
Consider ACSS/AW: soft aluminum, supported by aluminum-clad steel. The largest size that Southwire sells (Joree) is 1.88 inches in diameter, 2.38 pounds per foot of aluminum, .309 pounds per foot steel, .0066 ohms/1000 ft DC @ 20 C, rated for 3407 amps at 200 C. As of Dec 1, 2006, it costs $322/CWT. CWT is 100 pounds, so that's $8.66/foot.
Now lets consider how much wire we need to move 10 gigawatts across 1000 miles. The more wire (cross section) we use, the less resistance we'll have and the less power will be lost. The optimal point for these kinds of problems is when the marginal cost of the wire is equal to the marginal cost of the electricity lost to resistance. After this point, when you add wire, the cost of the wire increases faster than the value of the power saved, so that you have lost money.
Let's assume the electricity costs $0.04/kw-hr and that we're transmitting an RMS average of 10 gigawatts. The RMS (root mean square) part of this last assumption lets us estimate power losses. Finally, lets assume we transmit with a +/- 500 kV high-voltage DC transmission system, which is the lowest-loss long-distance transmission system available today.
To convert ongoing electrical costs into a present value we can compare to the cost of the wire, assume a discount rate of 5%.
The optimal point for 10 GW is 4 conductors each way (8 total conductors).
wire cost: $366 million
resistance: 8.72 ohms
power lost: 871 megawatts
P.V. lost electricity: $305 million
Here the wire cost doesn't quite equal the present value of the lost electricity because the number of conductors is quantized, and I'm only considering one type of conductor. But, it's close.
One interesting thing about electrical transmission is that the optimal point for wires used doesn't change with distance. Double the distance, double the resistance, double the power lost, and double the wire cost. The total cross section of conductors used is the same. So we can talk about how much more electricity costs after it has moved a distance.
The electricity transmitted has three costs: the cost of the power lost, the rent on the money borrowed to build the transmission lines, and the maintenance and depreciation on the power lines. We just showed the first two will be equal, and the last will be smaller - electric power lines are like dams and bridges, they last for a long time. So the total cost of transmission will be a bit more than twice the cost of the power lost.
This is a really nice rule of thumb because it reduces away the actual costs of power and interest rates and so forth. We can now convert a distance into a cost multiplier. For the geeks among you, the multiplier is (1+power lost)/(1-power lost). Note that power lost is a function of the relative costs of copper and electricity, so that hasn't been reduced away, but merely hidden.
After 1000 miles, 8.71% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 19% extra.
After 2000 miles, 17.4% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 42% extra.
After 3000 miles, 26.1% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 71% extra.
After 4000 miles, 34.8% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 107% extra.
This, in a nutshell, is the argument for locating generators near their loads.
With Tesla, you must read the fine print. I worked for them. We replaced a lot of batteries under warranty....with used batteries.
While they do come with 8 year warranty coverage, and either 100,000 or 120,000 miles (for standard or long range trims, respectively) the battery is warranted by a standard known as "retention."
If your battery degrades more than 70% of voltage retention (think of it like capacity) in the warranty period, Tesla will replace your battery - not necessarily with a new one, but with one that does exceed the 70% limit.
CoyotesGator
Ambassador of Reptilian Rum Bar Affairs
Gotta crash but will do a VD calculation tomorrow.
Need a voltage, @Inspector #20 , are you assuming transmission voltage larger than 125000?
CoyotesGator
Ambassador of Reptilian Rum Bar Affairs
Even I have a favorite child.The Orange one
I'll look back to the research paper and see what other details i can find.
That's an interesting read, but it's really dealing with more than just the question of line loss through the power lines. It's more trying to ascertain total cost of transmission, hence it utilizes the additional criteria of rent, cost of wire, maintenance, etc.
But, the info toward the bottom and in the middle does give us some salient info regarding actual transmission loss. In the example cited, a distance of 1000 miles results in an 8.71% loss.
Of course, wire distance is one of the main factors in transmission and distribution (T&D) losses, so the amount of loss is really going to vary from location to location. Nevertheless, I could find no source that places the actual transmission and distribution losses at above 15%. Many are around the 8% level and some, like the US Energy Information Administration estimate, are closer to 5%. In fact, the US EIA link provides information on how to calculate the T&D losses for each state (you do have to download an Excel spreadsheet and look up some figures in the sheet). Maryland calculates out to 5.29% T&D losses.
My point is that I'm trying to figure out the understanding behind the 63% loss that AMS mentioned.
Asking the department of energy these questions is like asking a kid who ate all the Oreos. I seriously doubt the data they post to be wholly accurate.
When i served in the military, i was actually trained in "disinformation campaign methodology," by your government. Keep that in mind.
The transmission loss is greatly affected by environmental conditions and i believe it can be far greater than 15% under some conditions.
Here's the part of the research document that i found most interesting - the cost of the power:
After 1000 miles, 8.71% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 19% extra.
After 2000 miles, 17.4% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 42% extra.
After 3000 miles, 26.1% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 71% extra.
After 4000 miles, 34.8% is lost, and delivered power costs at least 107% extra.
Like most things in the modern world, its another shell game of concealment of facts.
Interesting new development that may result in reduced charging times:
www.yahoo.com
And, interesting research by Toyota into using hydrogen fuel cells for semi-trucks:
Researchers Have Developed New Battery Technology That Can Charge Your EV in 10 Minutes
The tech, which was developed by researchers at Penn State and EC Power, could reduce battery size significantly.
And, interesting research by Toyota into using hydrogen fuel cells for semi-trucks:
Approx 300 mile range per tank is not very much. At highway speeds that’ll only get you 5-6 hours between fills. I’ve driven trucks. After 5 hours I’m ready to get out…. Stretch the legs….. take a pee…. And then get at it again. And that was when I was a youngster with an actual bladder.Interesting new development that may result in reduced charging times:
Researchers Have Developed New Battery Technology That Can Charge Your EV in 10 Minutes
The tech, which was developed by researchers at Penn State and EC Power, could reduce battery size significantly.
And, interesting research by Toyota into using hydrogen fuel cells for semi-trucks:
Im totally cool with whatever they come up with. My only issue is when they want to force you to drive an EV, or force you to accept a particular political ideology.
I like the sound of a V8. The mufflers we built have a very unique tone....very distinctive. i enjoy my long drives out into the desert, where my daily goal is simply to see how far i can go in 8 or 10 hours.
I won't own or drive an automatic. I dont enjoy them and, like most things "automatic," they are prone to glitches.
The most ironic part of this is how inherently unreliable computer systems are and people are cool with self-driving modes and fumly electronic cars.
Now, for me personally, im going back to a 1970 Dodge Challenger with a 4 barrel and point ignition. I will, however, add high-flow catalytic converters to it for the sake of reducing the exhaust emmisions, because i hate that "rich fuel smell" from the older cars in traffic, but i don't trust our electronics very much....
I like the sound of a V8. The mufflers we built have a very unique tone....very distinctive. i enjoy my long drives out into the desert, where my daily goal is simply to see how far i can go in 8 or 10 hours.
I won't own or drive an automatic. I dont enjoy them and, like most things "automatic," they are prone to glitches.
The most ironic part of this is how inherently unreliable computer systems are and people are cool with self-driving modes and fumly electronic cars.
Now, for me personally, im going back to a 1970 Dodge Challenger with a 4 barrel and point ignition. I will, however, add high-flow catalytic converters to it for the sake of reducing the exhaust emmisions, because i hate that "rich fuel smell" from the older cars in traffic, but i don't trust our electronics very much....
I guess I don’t feel like I’m being made to do anything. Still feel it’s my choice to own and drive what I want. Gas powered vehicles are going to be with us for a long time. Many of us have “collector” cars that will still be getting driven decades from now. No technology stays static. It’s always evolving, whether that be computers or transportation. Doesn’t matter what force is pushing it forward, it’s gonna happen. I’ve been hearing about advances they’re working on with computers that will make everything we’re currently using obsolete…. Think super computer in a phone size pkg. Yes. That an exaggeration, but powerful enough computers it’ll make AI a reality…. Whether we like it or not.
As for me and transportation. It’ll be my Honda and my wife’s SUV for the foreseeable future. Throw in my Vette for the occasional romp around town. However, if we move from northern Illinois to warmer climates, it’ll probably be to one of those communities where everyone drives a golf cart. Yuck!!
Approx 300 mile range per tank is not very much. At highway speeds that’ll only get you 5-6 hours between fills. I’ve driven trucks. After 5 hours I’m ready to get out…. Stretch the legs….. take a pee…. And then get at it again. And that was when I was a youngster with an actual bladder.
Sure. Understood. But, it’s a start.
Yep. It is for sure. It’s how we advance any kind of newish technology. Baby steps and time.
Kinda like me and the college math courses I took. I’m relatively good at math, but inevitably I’d hit a wall. Could not for the life of me figure it out. Then out of nowhere, be working on a problem and the light bulb went on. Bam…. Rest of the course was easy peasy.
Technology is like that. Beat our heads for decades trying to invent the latest and greatest to no avail. Then bam. Overnight we’re flying off to the moon.
Last edited: