Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by IgorPartola | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

IgorPartola

I'm pretty sure you save nothing by driving this car. Think about this:

1. Energy and materials for manufacturing the batteries

2. Energy for recycling the batteries

3. Energy to charge the batteries

4. Energy to mine the coal (most common fuel in the U.S.) to produce the electricity

5. Energy losses on the power lines, transformers, etc.

If you are after saving the environment, buy a used Geo instead. However, Tesla makes damn cool cars.

View on HN

This is a really good point: if you are going to buy a car anyway, it might be better to buy an electric car (though I, personally, doubt it, and would love to see the actual environmental impact), but if you want to help the environment, buy a used car. Almost any used car will be better for the environment than the best new car.

That's true as far as it goes, but this gets very tricky to analyze, because if you don't buy the used car, someone else will. If you do buy it, what would the other buyer have done instead? (Bought a new car? Kept running their old car?)

Assuming it's not a gross polluter, keeping a car on the road longer than it would have been otherwise is probably a win, since that extends the average lifetime of the fleet and reduces demand for new cars. But that has more to do with good maintenance over the life of the car, rather than what transactions happened along the way.

I'm missing some point here. Isn't a new car more environment friendly?

I would think it depends on the new car and the old car and usage, but the idea is that a large amount of resources goes in to making a car so saving that initial outlay of resources by reusing an older car would more than cover the difference in fuel consumption.

..but the idea is that a large amount of resources goes in to making a car so saving that initial outlay of resources..

If so, then why work? Isn't that a waste of Energy, time and resources? We could simply live on like humans did thousands of years ago...

> If so, then why work?

Most people need to pay the bills. Room, board, that sort of thing.

> Isn't that a waste of Energy, time and resources?

Work for work's sake -- perhaps. If you rather receive something desirable in proportional exchange for your labor, then no.

> We could simply live on like humans did thousands of years ago...

Whaddya mean we? All 7 billion of us? Not a chance. 7 million, maybe. I, for one, am getting up at 8am tomorrow.

Not at all. It takes a lot of energy and materials to mine and process the raw materials to create a new car. You have to take into account the whole process, from building new mines, to creating sheet aluminum, to building the factories to put new cars together. The list goes on.

There is the advantage that the pollution coming from this car is from fairly centralized sources. The power pollution is at the plant, not the tailpipe, and you're not building a car that inherently depends upon coal. It could run off any power source you can attach to the grid.

The battery pack stays with the car until you're in EOL mode for it, which can then likely be recycled reasonably.

Sure. However, in the US, no new nuclear power plants have been built since the 70s and no new ones are planned. Here, the relatively clean sources of electricity (nuclear and hydro) make up less than 20% of the total production [1]. And once again, the amount of energy that goes into the production of the batteries I bet far outweighs the energy used to drive the car for a few years (have not done the actual numbers). Yes, if we start adding cogeneration capabilities [2] to our coal-fired power plants, we may come out somewhat ahead. However, almost nobody does it currently, except small universities.

As for attaching solar panels to the roof of your house, you might break even assuming you get a full subsidy from your state and the panels outlast their expected lifetime. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source for more fun facts.

Fun fact: I once calculated that adding cogeneration to one average sized coal power plant would more than make up for all the energy spent making and recycling plastic grocery bags. There are thousands of these plants in the US.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_the_United_States

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogeneration

Electronic cars are about large scale infrastructure change.

Don't forget the environmentally destructive mining of rare earth metals in China.

Do you positively know that the Model S will use rare earth metals in its manufacturing process?

I'm asking this because the Tesla Roadster uses a three-phase electric motor (called an induction motor) that does not rely on permanent magnets. This leaves the decision to use rare earth metals as a purely optional one (like in, maybe use them for the chassis). I was under the impression that the Model S would be using the same type of electric motor, but I may be wrong.

Of course, we still must not forget the environmentally destructive mining of lithium, needed for the Li-Ion battery pack.

This sparked a thought experiment in my mind.

Let's assume that we are in an age where the grand majority has an electric car which is charged from home. Let's also assume that the electrical consumption of all other electrical devices (appliances, electronics, lights etc) stays constant.

What extra load will electric cars add to the power grid?

Would the extra power plants required to meet this extra load add up to a relatively equal waste output as today's cars?

e: grammar, clarity

From what I gather, currently you need to check with your utility company to see if they can deliver enough power to your home before installing a charging station. They are concerned about it, so I imagine they are not ready to charge any significant proportion of cars.

Yeah, the Roadster requires a 220V/70A charging system. I've owned a lot of homes and don't recall ever having seen beyond 220v/30A lines for electric dryers and stoves. A 70A line is definitely requiring a new service box for just about any residential set up. The Model S requires 440V service. No idea how that is going to work, I've never seen a house anywhere in the world with 440V AC service. For this you're going to need the electric company to set up a separate transformer on the pole just for your house.

But charging is mostly at night when there is an excess of capacity, so that is a good thing.

I hear people talking about using solar panels to charge these things. There is no solar service on any residential house that is going to be providing 220V 70A service for recharging these cars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com