Towing with Tesla Model X

[thefortunes]

722 is probably higher than I would expect, though running at 400 on average that makes sense.

Our Model 3 ran about 315 on avg, which I thought was high. Seemed avg. over on Tesla forums was mid-high 200s.

I believe you had the performance version so you probably had the 20" wheels. Makes a HUGE difference in efficiency.

2022 EPA combined ratings are 257 wh/mi on 18" wheels, 298 wh/mi on 20" wheels.

 

[Remington]

I believe you had the performance version so you probably had the 20" wheels. Makes a HUGE difference in efficiency.

2022 EPA combined ratings are 257 wh/mi on 18" wheels, 298 wh/mi on 20" wheels.

do you also have a roadster?! super cool! how do yall like the FHXOs?

 

[2kwik4u]

This post made me think a bit.

https://jetboaters.net/threads/post-up-your-funny-memes-nothing-political-please.3619/page-301#post-599030

Sorry @Babin Farms kinda throwing you under the bus here It's not personal

I went and researched a bit. Just a quick bit. To see how accurate that meme might be. I didn't want to muddy that thread (its too light hearted to throw this grenade in there), but wanted to discuss it at some level. Since we're already WAY off thread title topic here, I figured this would be a good place to put it.

So the premise of the meme is, the electricity we use to power EV's is still "dirty" because it comes from coal.......which at first hand looks pretty obvious. I was curious though; how true is that?

Essentially, I quickly googled the output of coal and natural gas power plants. Then I looked up the emissions of a single gallon of gasoline. I broke those down to an emissions per unit energy. This looks GOOD for gasoline, however I also need to consider the relative efficiency of the vehicles. This is to say, how much energy is required to travel a mile. An EV (a model 3 shown above, goes 1 mile with ~250Wh of energy used, while the national average vehicle goes 22 miles on ~3,370Wh of energy. That boiled down to the numbers on the right there that gets us to consistent units of kWh/mi. Finally, you multiply the CO2/kWh of the fuel with the kWh/mi of the vehicle, and you get a total CO2/mi number. Similar units that you can easily compare.

Here's what I worked out.



We can see that, on average, the EV is still a significant lower polluter, on a per mile basis as compared to an ICE. I thought this might be the case, however this clearly isn't an exhaustive analysis. It's just some simple back of the napkin math. It doesn't consider production CO2 generated by the mining process and other issues with manufacturing each vehicle. It doesn't account for the CO2 created in the transportation of the energy from the source (power plant, or oil field) to the final destination (storage on the vehicle).

I ran a few more scenarios to see how sensitive the values are. Someone always asks me to anyway when I do this kind of thing

This one assumes all coal electricity, and sees what kind of fuel economy "breaks even" with the EV.


This one checks a Rivian against my old Sierra. Assuming all coal electricity. Much closer results.


This is the first analysis again, but with electricity sources averaged.


Overall, I think it's just like the rest of the math we've run in this thread. You can swing the numbers either way depending on what assumptions you make and run with. Ultimately it does show, again, how much more efficient an EV is at turning energy into distance travelled. I think the last scenario really shows how the EV's benefit greatly from improved efficiencies upstream, where as the ICE is forced to maintain the same chemical reaction physics along the way.

Anywho, thanks for coming to my Ted/Math talk

Sources:
Gasoline CO2 values -> Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle | US EPA.
Power Plant CO2 Emissions ->

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2014/01/natural-gas-power-plants-produce-40.html#:~:text=Coal%2Dbased%20power%20plants%20emitted,ounces)%20CO2%20per%20kilowatt%20hour

.

 

[thefortunes]

do you also have a roadster?! super cool! how do yall like the FHXOs?

Yep, we have an S, 3 and Roadster (and a Nissan Leaf for the teenager).

We sold the waverunners a couple years ago to someone on this board. They were awesome.

 

[BlkGS]

This post made me think a bit.

https://jetboaters.net/threads/post-up-your-funny-memes-nothing-political-please.3619/page-301#post-599030

Sorry @Babin Farms kinda throwing you under the bus here It's not personal

I went and researched a bit. Just a quick bit. To see how accurate that meme might be. I didn't want to muddy that thread (its too light hearted to throw this grenade in there), but wanted to discuss it at some level. Since we're already WAY off thread title topic here, I figured this would be a good place to put it.

So the premise of the meme is, the electricity we use to power EV's is still "dirty" because it comes from coal.......which at first hand looks pretty obvious. I was curious though; how true is that?

Essentially, I quickly googled the output of coal and natural gas power plants. Then I looked up the emissions of a single gallon of gasoline. I broke those down to an emissions per unit energy. This looks GOOD for gasoline, however I also need to consider the relative efficiency of the vehicles. This is to say, how much energy is required to travel a mile. An EV (a model 3 shown above, goes 1 mile with ~250Wh of energy used, while the national average vehicle goes 22 miles on ~3,370Wh of energy. That boiled down to the numbers on the right there that gets us to consistent units of kWh/mi. Finally, you multiply the CO2/kWh of the fuel with the kWh/mi of the vehicle, and you get a total CO2/mi number. Similar units that you can easily compare.

Here's what I worked out.

View attachment 175590

We can see that, on average, the EV is still a significant lower polluter, on a per mile basis as compared to an ICE. I thought this might be the case, however this clearly isn't an exhaustive analysis. It's just some simple back of the napkin math. It doesn't consider production CO2 generated by the mining process and other issues with manufacturing each vehicle. It doesn't account for the CO2 created in the transportation of the energy from the source (power plant, or oil field) to the final destination (storage on the vehicle).

I ran a few more scenarios to see how sensitive the values are. Someone always asks me to anyway when I do this kind of thing

This one assumes all coal electricity, and sees what kind of fuel economy "breaks even" with the EV.
View attachment 175591

This one checks a Rivian against my old Sierra. Assuming all coal electricity. Much closer results.
View attachment 175592

This is the first analysis again, but with electricity sources averaged.
View attachment 175593

Overall, I think it's just like the rest of the math we've run in this thread. You can swing the numbers either way depending on what assumptions you make and run with. Ultimately it does show, again, how much more efficient an EV is at turning energy into distance travelled. I think the last scenario really shows how the EV's benefit greatly from improved efficiencies upstream, where as the ICE is forced to maintain the same chemical reaction physics along the way.

Anywho, thanks for coming to my Ted/Math talk

Sources:
Gasoline CO2 values -> Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle | US EPA.
Power Plant CO2 Emissions ->

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2014/01/natural-gas-power-plants-produce-40.html#:~:text=Coal%2Dbased%20power%20plants%20emitted,ounces)%20CO2%20per%20kilowatt%20hour

.

I didn't read your whole things, but an important factor that needs to be addressed is the impact of making a new car, and scrapping an old one.

The US doesn't use a ton of coal anymore, because we have access to natural gas and oil for power generation. But you know who does? China. They use shit loads of coal because it's cheaper and they care about the environment about as much as they care about the rights and freedoms of their people.

China also happens to be where most new stuff is built. Even if you assemble something in the usz the equipment in factory you built to do that is made in China. The equipment used to build the factory is made in China. The building materials you used are likely made in China.

Problem 2 is that China isn't exactly next door. It is in fact, the literal other side of the world. So to get around this we have MASSIVE cargo ships that run on effectively crude oil and pollute worse than a coal power plant. So we load those up in China and smoke them all the way to the US. But since their exhaust is below the water line, they don't appear as dirty and polluting to the casual observer. Then they go back to China, typically unloaded because China makes imports virtually impossible.

My point is that while it's possible to math up that an EV is cleaner in power consumption, you're not accounting for the totality of the situation.. Making a new car is in no way, ever cleaner than not building one. We didn't even get into the EOL stuff for the car we are taking off the road to replace it.

If we really cared about the environment, we would restrict trade with China, and restrict the mount of new goods that can be created or imported.. FIXING YOUR OLD SHIT is the most eco friendly thing you can do, vs disposing of something and getting a new one.

 

[Remington]

This post made me think a bit.

https://jetboaters.net/threads/post-up-your-funny-memes-nothing-political-please.3619/page-301#post-599030

Anywho, thanks for coming to my Ted/Math talk

Sources:
Gasoline CO2 values -> Greenhouse Gas Emissions from a Typical Passenger Vehicle | US EPA.
Power Plant CO2 Emissions ->

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/blog/earth_to_power/2014/01/natural-gas-power-plants-produce-40.html#:~:text=Coal%2Dbased%20power%20plants%20emitted,ounces)%20CO2%20per%20kilowatt%20hour

.

Thats some awesome info! if your up to it can you add a calculation for people with solar panels?

 

[2kwik4u]

I agree, you have valid points, and they're well worth considering.

I didn't read your whole things, but an important factor that needs to be addressed is the impact of making a new car, and scrapping an old one.

I clearly mention that this math doesn't take those into account, and that they are important considerations. Dude, I know I'm long winded, but ya gotta read the whole thing.

 

[2kwik4u]

Thats some awesome info! if your up to it can you add a calculation for people with solar panels?

Yea, kinda easy thought experiment though. If you can produce 100% of the energy your vehicle makes from solar, then the only CO2 emissions you have are from the production/manufacturing of the equipment initially. The EV number would go to zero in the back of the napkin math I did above.

 

[BlkGS]

I agree, you have valid points, and they're well worth considering.



I clearly mention that this math doesn't take those into account, and that they are important considerations. Dude, I know I'm long winded, but ya gotta read the whole thing.

Next time I've got a really long turd I guess, lol.

I just think much is made of the act of fueling a vehicle, but that's just a fraction of the energy used in the life cycle. That's not even factoring in the harm that growing overseas economies from budding things like solar panels and strip mining the wart for materials and all that does.

I get that thinking through the whole thing gets tough and makes people feel bad about buying something new, but that doesn't cha ge the fact that these are costs that must be considered.

 

[2kwik4u]

Next time I've got a really long turd I guess, lol.

This comment struck a cord. I tried to let it go, but can't.

My post = 433 words
Your post telling me my post was too long (and responding to shit that I addressed in my initial post) = 340 words.

Average reading speeds are around 225 words per minute. That difference above is around 22 seconds of your time.

I'll try to stick with simple illustrations and pictures to try and hold your obscenely short attention span from now on.

 

[adrianp89]

Next time I've got a really long turd I guess, lol.

I just think much is made of the act of fueling a vehicle, but that's just a fraction of the energy used in the life cycle. That's not even factoring in the harm that growing overseas economies from budding things like solar panels and strip mining the wart for materials and all that does.

I get that thinking through the whole thing gets tough and makes people feel bad about buying something new, but that doesn't cha ge the fact that these are costs that must be considered.

You talk about these EV costs without talking about the current costs of manufacturing ICE

 

[BlkGS]

You talk about these EV costs without talking about the current costs of manufacturing ICE

The assumption is people are replacing a vehicle. My point was more of the cost of "buying a new vehicle" that'd be part of "transitioning to an EV fleet".

My point is more that it's greener to not replace a vehicle than it is to replace with an EV. But people like buying new cars, and so rather than trying to change how disposable our world is, I guess it's easier to just convince people they're doing the right thing.

 

[BlkGS]

This comment struck a cord. I tried to let it go, but can't.

My post = 433 words
Your post telling me my post was too long (and responding to shit that I addressed in my initial post) = 340 words.

Average reading speeds are around 225 words per minute. That difference above is around 22 seconds of your time.

I'll try to stick with simple illustrations and pictures to try and hold your obscenely short attention span from now on.

I made it to 3 in this post. Lol

 

[BlkGS]

The new EQS SUV looks nice, but small. It should have been GLS sized IMO, it seems more like GLB in length.

 

[2kwik4u]

Interesting take on charging solutions.

https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/electric-vehicles-level-1-chargers-policy.html

Honestly makes a lot of sense.....have to get JQPublic to understand the paradigm shift though.

 

[CarolinaJet]

Interesting take on charging solutions.

https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/electric-vehicles-level-1-chargers-policy.html

Honestly makes a lot of sense.....have to get JQPublic to understand the paradigm shift though.

Thanks, the article makes a good point. Interestingly enough, I traveled to Alaska a long time ago and found there were electric outlets for engine block heaters at restaurant parking lots in Fairbanks. I’m sure they are in many other places up north too. So it definitely can be done because it already has need done.

 

[BlkGS]

Interesting take on charging solutions.

https://slate.com/technology/2022/05/electric-vehicles-level-1-chargers-policy.html

Honestly makes a lot of sense.....have to get JQPublic to understand the paradigm shift though.

It'd clearly written by someone with no bearing in reality.

People don't want to even charge their phones, which is a device that has been being charged since I've been alive. People spend good money on wireless chargers simply so they don't have to do that. Expecting that someone will plug in a charger when they're going in to a Starbucks to shit and buy a coffee is asinine. This is the country that decided our invention of the drive through was too much work, so now we get Uber eats and have someone bring us food to our fat faces while we sit on the couch.

Ubiquitous chargers could work for around town, but only if it's wireless. Also, the cost to do this is IMMENSE. Like, truly staggeringly immense. You think inflation is bad now, it's probably cost a trillion dollars to put all these chargers in, let alone the massive amount of Chinese shit we would have to import for it.

It also does no good for long distance trips which are the real unsolved issue. A 200 mile battery easily covers multiple days for most people. It's also totally useless for a long trip if you're not lolly gagging around.

Unfortunately this whole thing is more about congress making money than solving issues, because electric motors with 20 to 100 mile batteries and ICE range extenders is the logical, effective, and smart solution. But it doesn't make congress billions along the way so ain't no way they're gonna let that happen.

 

[buckbuck]

Here is the best video I have found to date about the Ford F 150 Lightning towing. Skip to 6:00 and 10:00 if you don't have time to watch it all.

 

[2kwik4u]

@BlkGS Gave you a thumbs down for that one.

I had about 6 pages typed out, but then I realized you can't teach someone that isn't interested in learning.

Let us know when you're ready to open up that mind, and check your cynicism at the door.

 

[BlkGS]

@BlkGS Gave you a thumbs down for that one.

I had about 6 pages typed out, but then I realized you can't teach someone that isn't interested in learning.

Let us know when you're ready to open up that mind, and check your cynicism at the door.

It's not cynicism, it's reality. You're expecting to cha ge the minds of people up the path of resistance. That has never worked, literally ever. The US is a country that has an obesity epidemic but we keep making food easier to get, and give people more excuses to not be active. This is something that literally will kill you, yet people actively choose the easy path. So expecting people to microcharge their EVs is just silly, and of course this assumes you're going to be places where they BUILD that infrastructure, which we all know is going to be only in major cities.

TTaking the economic factors out, which is insane but we will, the right way to implement micro charging is wirelessly, or even via in ground connectors. You could put them in roadways and microcharge at stop lights, and it'd be nothing to develop a system that would drop down a pair of charging contacts to some powered rails int he ground. Think something like the electric slot cars from back in the day.

BBottom line, EV adoption is going to be directly correlated with how easy it is. If you make it so your car auto charged wirelessly while it's stopped, that's super easy, and it will take off. EV fanatics are looking at it wrong, it's not a "what level of extra annoyance will people take", it's a "how do we make this the easy solution".