• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Tesla unveils Model X electric car with Falcon Wing doors

Samhain said:
If a consumer's goal is to reduce CO2 output, they would be best served walking everywhere they need to go.
Click to expand...

:roll:

If a government's goal is to reduce crime, it would be best served by killing all of the citizens so there is nobody to commit crime.
 
DA60 said:
'Silicon Valley electric car-maker Tesla has launched its third model to date - a sports-utility vehicle distinguished by its double-hinged "falcon wing" rear doors, which unfurl themselves upwards to help parents put their children inside.
The Model X was unveiled nearly two years later than originally scheduled.
The firm's chief executive Elon Musk acknowledged that the "difficulty in engineering" some of the parts involved had been greater than he had originally expected.
The car can fit seven people and can travel about 250 miles (400km) on a single charge.
However, analysts say its price - which runs as high as $144,000 (£95,100) - is expected to temper demand. Tesla has said it plans to unveil a lower-cost vehicle in 2017.
The company has yet to make a profit.
The BBC's North America technology reporter Dave Lee was at the launch event in Fremont, California.'

Tesla unveils Model X electric car with Falcon Wing doors - BBC News

It's probably fantastic, wonderful...and costs WAAAAY too much for most people to ever afford.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

It is a great concept if they made it in a two door for only two people with a huge sound system. Not just a good sound system, a huge and really nice sound system.
 
Deuce said:
...prove he would have.
Click to expand...
Burden of proof rests with the one making the first claim, that he would have gone out of business sans CA tax breaks.
 
Deuce said:
It's faster than all of them though :)
Click to expand...

No, its not faster than the Zonda, or the GTR, a Porsche 911 Turbo or a Ferrari 458 Italia.

Those are actuall sports cars, not high priced gimmicks on wheels
 
Fenton said:
No, its not faster than the Zonda, or the GTR, a Porsche 911 Turbo or a Ferrari 458 Italia.

Those are actuall sports cars, not high priced gimmicks on wheels
Click to expand...

I think Tesla is a highly flawed company model that has yet to post a profit in 12 years?!? And I detest that the government lent them over 400 million dollars (I don't care that Tesla paid them back - they should not have been lent all that taxpayer money in the first place).

BUT...I disagree that they do not make great cars.

The Model S P85D has four wheel drive and does 0-60 in 3.2 seconds. That is VERY fast. It puts out the equivalent of over 650 hp. Plus, I just adore the interior with that massive tablet in the middle.

But, it's also mega expensive.
 
Samhain said:
In northern Ohio, and about 70% of the country, the power that I put into the car comes from coal or natural-gas power plants. You are just shifting the power source.
Click to expand...

Those power plants are much more efficient at producing power than your gasoline engine is though.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Those power plants are much more efficient at producing power than your gasoline engine is though.
Click to expand...

Well, that all depends on the efficiency of your source of electricity.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, that all depends on the efficiency of your source of electricity.
Click to expand...

The CO2 emitted to move a typical electric car 100 miles even if the electricity is generated from coal works out to be about .534 pounds of C02 per mile. The C02 emitted to move a typical gas powered vehicle the same distance works out to be about .970 pounds of C02 per mile. Of course, if you get your electricity from natural gas then its far less C02 than coal.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The CO2 emitted to move a typical electric car 100 miles even if the electricity is generated from coal works out to be about .534 pounds of C02 per mile. The C02 emitted to move a typical gas powered vehicle the same distance works out to be about .970 pounds of C02 per mile. Of course, if you get your electricity from natural gas then its far less C02 than coal.
Click to expand...

Coal power plants average about 2.12 pounds of CO2 per kWh.

Gasoline produces 19.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon, and 33.7 kWh, or 0.6 pounds of CO2 per kwh

Let's assume that the average gasoline engine is 25% efficient (low end estimate) in chemical conversion to kinetic, that means that direct power output to CO2 is about 2.4 lbs of co2 per kwh

The Tesla is 80% efficient in electric conversion to kinetic which equals 2.65 lbs of CO2 per kwh.


I'd like to know what their "average car" was in the article you got your information from.

Even given all of that the "average" gasoline car is easily improvable to outperform a Tesla in efficiency for far less cost. Toyota has a gasoline motor that has a thermal efficiency of 38% which trounces a coal powered Tesla and is fitted in cars that are far cheaper.
 
jmotivator said:
Coal power plants average about 2.12 pounds of CO2 per kWh.

Gasoline produces 19.6 pounds of CO2 per gallon, and 33.7 kWh, or 0.6 pounds of CO2 per kwh

Let's assume that the average gasoline engine is 25% efficient (low end estimate) in chemical conversion to kinetic, that means that direct power output to CO2 is about 2.4 lbs of co2 per kwh

The Tesla is 80% efficient in electric conversion to kinetic which equals 2.65 lbs of CO2 per kwh.


I'd like to know what their "average car" was in the article you got your information from.

Even given all of that the "average" gasoline car is easily improvable to outperform a Tesla in efficiency for far less cost. Toyota has a gasoline motor that has a thermal efficiency of 38% which trounces a coal powered Tesla and is fitted in cars that are far cheaper.
Click to expand...

It looks like its all a question of location: http://www.motherjones.com/environm...cles-actually-cause-more-pollution-gas-cars-0
 
jmotivator said:
Right. It seems all good news about electric cars come with a laundry list of unstated caveats.

Like I said at the beginning of the thread, Tesla is a microcosm of the problem with the green movement today... lots of promise that never seems to pan out in a way that is applicable on a large scale and a huge price tag.
Click to expand...

There is lots of promise with every movement. Some that pans out, some that doesn't. The green movement over the last century has given us federal wilderness, a lot of national parks, CAFE standards, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, even things like bike lanes, green space, trails and so on... and every time they did it, some industry lobbyists and the politicians they bought were yelling doom and gloom.

The green movement isn't right about everything, for example they are wrong about nuclear energy and natural gas, but they are right about a lot more than they are wrong about.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
There is lots of promise with every movement. Some that pans out, some that doesn't. The green movement over the last century has given us federal wilderness, a lot of national parks, CAFE standards, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, even things like bike lanes, green space, trails and so on... and every time they did it, some industry lobbyists and the politicians they bought were yelling doom and gloom.

The green movement isn't right about everything, for example they are wrong about nuclear energy and natural gas, but they are right about a lot more than they are wrong about.
Click to expand...

Well, no, most of what you claim was the product of the conservation movement. But even claiming the conservation movement and green movement are the same, how many of those accomplishments have come since CO2 became enemy #1 to the Green movement?
 
jmotivator said:
Well, no, most of what you claim was the product of the conservation movement. But even claiming the conservation movement and green movement are the same, how many of those accomplishments have come since CO2 became enemy #1 to the Green movement?
Click to expand...

The conservation movement and the green movement are the same. There are basically 2 different factions: Conservationists and Preservationists. As to how many accomplishments since AGW. Lots actually. The Roadless Rule, millions of acres of new public lands, an update of CAFE standards, tighter regulations on diesel vehicles (including buses), thousands of miles of bike lanes.... Its not like CO2 is the only thing any environmental org is working on.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The conservation movement and the green movement are the same. There are basically 2 different factions: Conservationists and Preservationists. As to how many accomplishments since AGW. Lots actually. The Roadless Rule, millions of acres of new public lands, an update of CAFE standards, tighter regulations on diesel vehicles (including buses), thousands of miles of bike lanes.... Its not like CO2 is the only thing any environmental org is working on.
Click to expand...

Well, CO2 is the reason for the majority of the new accomplishments you stated.

When the world wakes up to the Green movement paradoxically opposed to an essential ingredient in plant growth the real conservation will suffer with the ensuing doubt.
 
jmotivator said:
Well, CO2 is the reason for the majority of the new accomplishments you stated.

When the world wakes up to the Green movement paradoxically opposed to an essential ingredient in plant growth the real conservation will suffer with the ensuing doubt.
Click to expand...

Frankly, that is just a stupid argument. Do we have a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere? Is the plant life on earth somehow starved for C02? Was the plant life on earth starved for C02 prior to the industrial age and the associated anthropogenic increases in C02 in the atmosphere?

Even if you completely eliminated C02 as an issue, it still would not in anyway lessen the need for strong environmental protections. We live in a world of 7 billion people where we have developed over 40% of the world's land surface. The vast majority of those that are skeptical of AGW are also against anything related to environmental protection. They were against the clean air act, they were against the wilderness act, they were against the endangered species act, they were against regulations on acid rain.
 
Fenton said:
How are Teslas recharged ? With Unicorn fairy dust ?

A bit misleading to say that Teslas or any electric cars are " zero "emmison.

And Tesla the best car ever made ?? Lol !!!
Hyperbole, propaganda and nonsense.

I've driven one. Its essentially a luxury golf cart but its better than a Nissan GTR ? Nope. A Lexus LFA ? Nope.

A Ferrari California ? Nope. A BWM M3 ? Nope. A Pagani Zonda ? Nope. A Mercedes SLK ? Nope. A Porsche 911 Turbo ? Nope. A Ferrari 458 Italia ? Nope.

1971 Dodge Challenger 440 + 6 ?? Nope. A 1968 Camarro SS ? Nope. A 1971 Chevelle ? Nope. A 1955 Chevy 2 door Bellaire ? Nope.

A 1956 Chevy Nomad ? Nope. A1957 Chrysler Fury ? Nope.
Click to expand...

You had it up to here. Of course it would be a 1957 Plymouth Fury.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Frankly, that is just a stupid argument. Do we have a shortage of CO2 in the atmosphere? Is the plant life on earth somehow starved for C02? Was the plant life on earth starved for C02 prior to the industrial age and the associated anthropogenic increases in C02 in the atmosphere?
Click to expand...

The planet has been greening over the last few decades. If plants are more robust now because of increased CO2 then I would say yes, they were starved before.

Even if you completely eliminated C02 as an issue, it still would not in anyway lessen the need for strong environmental protections.
Click to expand...

I never argued the contrary.

We live in a world of 7 billion people where we have developed over 40% of the world's land surface.
Click to expand...

Highly doubt this stat. I have seen it stated before, but it is at least highly misleading. It's all in how you define "developed". If a million acres of wild forest is opened to logging they count the million acres as developed rather than the small portion that is actually used by the loggers. I have a hard time with any statistic that counts the entirety of the national park system as "developed", for instance.

The vast majority of those that are skeptical of AGW are also against anything related to environmental protection.
Click to expand...

That's false.

They were against the clean air act, they were against the wilderness act, they were against the endangered species act, they were against regulations on acid rain.
Click to expand...

So by "anything" you really just mean the legislation you favor?
 
Zyphlin said:
Neat vehicle and woo for the Delorian style gull-wing doors on it. That said, while I do enjoy what Tesla's doing and the way they innovate, I'm not overly interested in their vehicles until Possibly the Model 3 is launched and gets a few years into it's cycle. $35,000 starting, dropping to closer to $20k or less for used models a few years after, is far more in my price range that interests me.



Well, as a relatively new owner of an Electric Car...that's just not true.

Now for me, the cost of a NEW electric car was FAR more than I would've been willing to pay for one. However, when it came to a used vehicle, it was not.

I've recently purchased a 2013 Nissan Leaf. I'd recognize at the start that the car isn't for everyone. When I first came upon it myself, I didn't think it was for me. It showed up in my searches repeatedly as the only vehicle at various dealerships that was in my price range and contained a number of convenience features I wanted. So then I started to look at my typical driving patterns and realized an 80 mile charge would actually work perfectly fine for me. Then I test drove the thing and found myself pleasantly surprised by how smooth the ride was and that it wasn't any less, if not a bit more, powerful than my wife's old civic. Then I began researching the cost to charge it and compared that to the costs of what I normally spent on gas and oil changes (and what I'd spend roughly looking at the next closest car I was likely to buy). By the end I was shocked, but happy, to be walking out with a Leaf.

For me, it works wonderfully...and that's despite finding out that the 240 volt plug in my garage that I *THOUGHT* I had was actually miswired by the old home owners and is attached to a 120 v breaker. Still, I plug it in when I get home most nights and unplug when I leave. Or I can go a few days without plugging it in and hook up at work, though that's a bit more expensive. So far it's seemed to have increased my energy bills about $30-$40 a month. Considering in my old Taurus I was putting in about $20 in gas a week at least, it's been nice.

For me, the electric car thing wasn't about the environment, it was about financials and comfort. I got some neat features like a 360 camera (nice for my horrible parallel parking self), heated leather seats, nav system, integrated garage door opener, Bluetooth, automatic LED Lights, XM, digital speedometer (I like seeing the specific number), etc along with the lower usage costs. And at the front end, I wasn't paying a premium. Why?

For the same reason I'm interested in the Model 3 a few years after it's out. EV's currently are being sold new with a pretty hefty hike to their cost as it relates to a comparable non-ev vehicle. However, it seems...at least in the DC area...that the depreciation of the EV initially is much higher, until it reaches a point where it sort of levels out with a comparable vehicle.

So say you have two vehicles, an EV and a non-EV. The new EV is $30,000 and the new non-EV is $20,000. Lets say after two years, the EV has lost $15,000 of it's value while the non-EV has only lost $5k. Now they're both priced at around $15,000, and at that point they start to depreciate at a more even level.

That seems to be the trend that I saw as I began looking at leafs. So I ended up getting a 2013 leaf, with under 10,000 miles on it, for about the same price I would've gotten a comparable non-EV that wouldn't have a number of the same features and had about 20 to 30 thousand more miles on it.

So long story short....they don't always cost more than people want to pay ;)
Click to expand...

Did you ask the seller why the car was for sale with so few miles on it?

The car was 2 years old with only 10K?

That would be a huge red flag for me.
 
There's no doubt electric motors are far, far more efficient than internal combustion engines. Whether the tech can be developed to make them practical for reliable and efficient transportation remains to be seen, and whether or not our power infrastructure will advance to reap the benefits seems to be the big challenge. In the mean time, I'm still pumping gas. In my lifetime, at least, I wil most likely always be pumping gas. I'll hold out hope for the rest of you that at some point transportation costs will be reduced both financially and environmentally, and not at the cost of personal freedom. Falcon wing doors? That's some funny stuff.
 
From many Engineering aspects, Electric cars are better than IC.
The problem is, and will be for a while, energy storage.
If we compare the energy storage of the best batteries to an IC car,
the shortfalls show up quick
Look at Tesla. new wall battery,
Tesla Powerwall
10 Kwh and weighs 220 lbs.
That same 220 lbs represents 31 gallons of gasoline, which if burned at a 10% efficiency
would yield about 100 Kwh of energy.
So pound for pound, gasoline carries ten times the energy as batteries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
 
Mason66 said:
You had it up to here. Of course it would be a 1957 Plymouth Fury.
Click to expand...

You are correct and I only chose the Plymouth Fury because its " Christine ", a favorite movie of mine.
 
longview said:
From many Engineering aspects, Electric cars are better than IC.
The problem is, and will be for a while, energy storage.
If we compare the energy storage of the best batteries to an IC car,
the shortfalls show up quick
Look at Tesla. new wall battery,
Tesla Powerwall
10 Kwh and weighs 220 lbs.
That same 220 lbs represents 31 gallons of gasoline, which if burned at a 10% efficiency
would yield about 100 Kwh of energy.
So pound for pound, gasoline carries ten times the energy as batteries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_gallon_equivalent
Click to expand...

Yeah, and these days a car's engine does quite a bit better than 10%. (more like 20-25% IIRC)

Since electric motors are so much more efficient than gasoline, we don't need to actually match the energy density of gasoline. If you could take a battery that is about twice the energy/kg of lithium ion batteries without increasing cost, I think you'd be getting into the commercially viable stage. Quadruple the energy/kg and I think you'd reasonably reach even the low end of the car market.

That's going to be a trillion dollar invention, whoever figures it out. Gee, maybe America should be investing in that kind of research...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom