So how many MPG does it make? If it makes basically the same as a normal Semi if it those than all of the Eco friendliness Tesla is know for is out the door.
If you drew that yourself (as the BeamNG logo on one of the shirts could indicate) then props to you, but I still can't pretend I like this. Picture a world in which the fastest cars around don't roar, or rumble, or scream, but simply whine. Where, as I said before, electricity has become the brass ring rather than the dorky, uncompetitive sideshow. Where all the coolest cars, the Hellcats, the Corvettes, the GT-Rs, the Lamborghinis and Ferraris, and all the classics on top of it, have been overtaken by an overgrown slot car. When you're out on the highway, or at a stoplight, or at the drag strip in your 900+ HP tuned monster, and that Tesla that just pulled up beside you isn't an enviro-dork's highway Segway that can sort of pretend to stay with you up to about 100MPH but then fails miserably, but a top-class hypercar that is 100% guaranteed to win unless its driver is literally one of the worst ever. At this point, I don't know that I can say anymore that you aren't a real car guy if that doesn't scare you. I can say that I liked it a lot better when electric propulsion was garbage so I could dismiss it out of hand without really having to think about that. This isn't necessarily an immediate problem; there are already hypercars that can outrun any stock and most tuned muscle & tuner cars, but they rarely show up in races because they're too rare and expensive to risk like that. And the Tesla Roadster, when it comes along, will most likely join that herd. But I seem to recall reading that there was a time when flat-screen TVs cost five figures, too - and now everyone has one. As long as Tesla continues to exist, they can keep developing the technology and bringing its cost down to where more normal people can afford to go electric - while also providing impetus for more mainstream manufacturers to support and grow their own electrification programs. And look at the likely markets for these two new vehicles - for the Roadster, ultra-rich people. For the truck, corporations large enough to have their own truck fleets and smooth-running supply chains. In other words, people who very well may have the disposable income to fund the local infrastructure upgrades which will be immediately necessary to support Tesla's fast chargers. Though there has been a large opening of the collective eyes lately, about a lot of things, I still consider it likely that these vehicles' prodigious energy consumption will get lost in the fog of "electric = Mother Earth Hero", as will the fact that our current grid probably can't handle a sudden increase in electric vehicle use, the fact that building the additional power plants required to solve that problem will take years and cost a huge amount of money (and, depending on the type, belch out more pollution too), or the fact that our grid is vulnerable to attack, human error, freak accidents, and combinations of the above, so being so dependent on it for something as basic as moving around is probably a bad idea. This is especially true as electric cars will actually lead to a decrease in localized pollution in the cities, and since the current idea in developed countries seems to be toward solving urban problems with national-level measures...
It has an official range of 800km in the big model and a range of 400km in the normal one so my guess would be a range of 600km for the big model and 290km for the small one as you probably want air conditioning or heater or something and if its slightly to cold it will loose alot more range as batteries tend not to work as good in the cold but for actual mpg i have no clue how much
What? I knew you were somewhat intellectually challenged but that makes surprisingly little sense even from you. Mpg. Mpg. IT'S ELECTRIC. The concept of MPG is irrelevant. That said, doing the math a model S works out to be about 90-120mpg equivalent assuming you translate gallons of gasoline to their raw energy content (doable). I'd predict the semi to be alot more but that roughly indicates how much more ENERGY efficient electric is than gasoline. Energy per unit mass or per unit volume to store it however is lower, but big words, intellectually challenged individual
While true. You have to remember the electricity costs less for the same amount of energy as gasoline would give, and that actually applies to both Europe and the US. Looking at current UK electricity prices, it's 12.3 pence per kWh of electricity right now. This corresponds to £98.40 being in the "tank" Doing some googling. Found a certain model Volvo that has a 1200 or so mile range from a 700 litre tank (notably doing just over 8mpg fully Laden here, higher than most trucks which float around 6 or 7mpg). It does this from a 700 litre tank. Now the tesla is 500 mile range, if we scale the fuel used in the Volvo down to 500 mile range we get 292 litres (rounded up from 291.something) Diesel is £1.23 per litre. £359.16 to buy the equivalent of £98.40 of electricity. So does it matter that your truck uses more than your household would? --- Post updated --- Now the flaw in my math is that you lose some energy to charging a battery and so you'd put more energy in that you'd get out. It's about 85% efficient. So let's scale that too quickly. £98.40 is 85% of £115.76. still only 1/3rd of what the diesel costs (All above ranges are full Laden)
The reason I made that comic (sketch, cartoon, whatever it is) is because I really just don't have an argument to make with you anymore on this topic. While you touched on some valid points at the end, the bulk of your argument essentially boils down to "I don't like electric cars because they're not gas powered cars," which is something I disagree with on a fundamental level. Neither of us will ever convince the other, so I basically just summed up how I feel in the simplest way possible. And since I guess I made it a little more subtle than I intended, it's supposed to be me, you, and @aljowen in the thing. From my perspective it seems like us three that get involved in the Tesla headbutting the most.
My Concern about this isnt the cost its more that i dont see it being that climate friendly if it needs that much power espacially when a big part of that energy coming from coal and nuclear power (I know nuclear energy doesnt emit CO2 but when a reactor leaks its effects are worse than CO2). Also if the Tesla Truck is heavier than a normal one it means it does still raise alot of particulate matter from the streets and the brakes so even if london would only have electric vehicles it wouldnt be that much better than now.
Why is everyone so butthurt about the new Tesla Roadster? It seems like the most "harmless" Tesla model to me. Only the richest can afford it, so only a limited number of these hardly-recyclable-chemical carriers will hit the road.
It barely uses the brakes, it mostly uses electric motor regen instead, as such, its brake pads will likely be emitting less particulates and also be consumed at a lower rate (hence reducing running costs even further). Most particulate matter on the streets is exhaust fume related though so its still a pretty poor argument. Additionally theres other energy sources in the world than coal and nuclear, much of europe barely uses coal. And coal burning in power plants is actually more efficient than burning diesel in a vehicle in terms of energy output for CO2 emission, and particulates too (theres high voltage grids in power plant exhaust systems which exist simply to strip particulate matter from the exhaust, the exhaust in many power plants is also used to heat water for local industry and preheat the water entering the boilers) --- Post updated --- there seems to be a correlation between stupidity and hatred of electric. Or just clinging to old ways which is more fair enough but shouldnt block progress
Here in germany 40 percent of our energy come from coal wich still pollutes the air also the point im trying to make but im failing to write is that the tesla truck isnt as clean as everyone wants to belive
Most of europe is about 40-50% fossil. The rest circa 50:50 split renewables and nuclear with fossil fuel dropping and renewables rising. The CO2 output per MW though for the fixed power plants is much lower than automobile engines so currently it is still cleaner to recharge a battery from a fixed power plant and consume that energy on the road than it is to burn the fuel on the road, and then with only half of that energy in the battery having any CO2 output anyway its still cleaner. Added bonus. Did more maths. That volvo required about 3 megawatt hours worth of diesel to make its 500 mile trip versus under 1 megawatt hour for the truck, mostly due to more efficient energy usage, a good brushless motor is way over 75% efficiency whereas automobile engines struggle to get anywhere near 25%, many fixed power stations do manage over 50%. That volvo is kicking out a lot more CO2 than is needed to move that load.
I still think it would be way more ecological to use Hydrogen as you can produce it with wind and solar power and its a much better way of storing energy than batteries (also more ecofriendly as hydrogen tanks dont need to be taken all around the world to be made) and if you use it in a car and so on itll just produce water wich could even be used to create hydrogen again. All in all i see the electric car as a placeholder for hydrogen cars at some point as they do still have downsides but not as much as electric and Petrol and diesel engines. (I also hope for a Hydrogen powered Rotary)
problem with hydrogen is infrastructure and storage. You seen what happens to hydrogen tanks in fires?
i have seen them but baterry packs can explode too in case of a fire and they can be quite dangerous too the same with petrol
not to quite the same extent, hydrogen also has to be stored pressurized and ideally chilled, quite difficult to do in a car. Like yeah tbh it is otherwise the better solution, but right now it has significant technical challenges.
